Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00685/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00685-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James McArthur Washington, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-685-PHX-SMM (VAM)

ORDER

On August 22, 2006, Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis filed a Report and

Recommendation [Doc. No. 15], advising this Court that Petitioner's "Request that this Court

Order the ADOC and the Attorney General's Office to Delay and Desist from

Tampering/Destroying Evidence" be denied. To date, neither Petitioner nor Respondents have

filed objections to Judge Mathis’s Report and Recommendation. However, Respondents have

filed a Request for Clarification to the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 20] and

Petitioner has filed a Response to Defendants' Request for Clarification [Doc. No. 21]. The

Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations with the clarifications

discussed below.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court must

“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391,

Case 2:06-cv-00685-SMM Document 22 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983)). 

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives his right to

challenge the Magistrate’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate’s legal

conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.

1998) (failure to object to Magistrate’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in

considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980)).

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, and no objections having been made by Petitioner thereto, the Court hereby

incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation with the following

clarifications. Judge Mathis recommends that Respondents provide notice to the Court before

destroying or discarding any of the documentary evidence currently possessed by Petitioner or

housed in ADOC storage. The Court will grant Respondents' request and limit the notice

requirement to the pendency of this action. The Court finds that this request is reasonable

because it accommodates the concerns of both parties without materially altering the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation. Petitioner wishes to protect his legal material while

Respondents seek to ease the administrative burden an unlimited notice requirement would

impose. Limiting Respondents notice requirements to the pendency of this action mollifies

Petitioner's concerns without placing an excessive administrative burden on Respondent. Thus,

the Court finds this request to be reasonable and will add it to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendations. Upon the conclusion of the present action, if Petitioner once again becomes

concerned that important documents will be destroyed by ADOC, then he may once again

petition the Court for injunctive relief. In addition, Respondents are only required to provide

notice to the Court before destroying legal material. Respondents may dispose the boxes

holding the legal material without notifying the Court since the boxes themselves have no

bearing on Petitioner's pending legal actions. 

Case 2:06-cv-00685-SMM Document 22 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis [Doc. No. 15 ] with the clarifications discussed

above.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this

Order to all parties as well as to Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis.

DATED this 29th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00685-SMM Document 22 Filed 10/02/06 Page 3 of 3