Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08049/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08049-2/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

Christopher Gale Underwood, 

Petitioner, 

v.

E. W. Morris, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-8049 PCT-NVW (LOA)

ORDER

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

Judge Anderson (Doc. # 16) regarding petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 8). The R&R recommends that the

Petition be denied and dismissed as premature and Petitioner be allowed to dismiss his

petition. 

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

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

(“Within 10 days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s order, a party may

serve and file objections to the order; a party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in

Case 3:08-cv-08049-NVW Document 17 Filed 12/22/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

the magistrate judge’s order to which objection was not timely made.”); Simpson v. Lear

Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-

21 (9th Cir. 2002).

The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well taken. The court will accept

the R&R and dismiss the Petition without prejudice. 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. # 16) is accepted.

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

petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. # 8) without prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

DATED this 19th day of December, 2008.

Case 3:08-cv-08049-NVW Document 17 Filed 12/22/08 Page 2 of 2