Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08047/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08047-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dennis Paul Eddy, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, Director of Arizona 

Department of Corrections; Tom Horne, 

The Attorney General of the State of 

Arizona, 

Respondents. 

No. CV-14-08047-PCT-NVW (BSB)

ORDER 

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade (Doc. 102) issued March 29, 2016, regarding 

petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 22). The R&R recommends that the Second Amended Petition be 

denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they 

had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 16 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); Rules 6, 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). No objections were filed. 

 Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the 

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any 

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a 

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the 

Case 3:14-cv-08047-NVW Document 107 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A 

party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a 

copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not 

timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 

1996); Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and 

finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Second 

Amended Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, 

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 

magistrate”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 102) is accepted. 

 Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order 

denying Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court 

FINDS: Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal 

are denied because dismissal of the second amended petition is justified by a plain 

procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling debatable and 

because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion to Submit a Second 

Supplement Reply to the Respondent’s Answer Due to the Most Recent Attempted 

Murder of Petitioner’s Life (Doc. 105) as the matter is not cognizable on federal habeas 

corpus. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:14-cv-08047-NVW Document 107 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 

and dismissing petitioner's Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 22) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this 

action. 

 Dated this 2nd day of May, 2016. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-08047-NVW Document 107 Filed 05/02/16 Page 3 of 3