Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01372/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01372-1/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

Johnny Edward Johnson, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora B. Schiro; Terry Goddard, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1372-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Johnson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and United Stat es M agistrate Judge David K. Duncan’s

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. ##1, 12. The R&R recommends that the

Court deny the petition. Doc. #12 at 1. The Magistrate Judge advised t he p arties that they

had t en days to file objections to the R&R and that the failure to timely file objections t o

any determination of the Magistrate Judge would be considered a waiver of the right to

review of such determination. Id. at 11 (cit ing 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)).

T he parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to

review t he R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; 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.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (“ The district judge . . . shall make a de

novo determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which

Case 2:05-cv-01372-DGC Document 13 Filed 12/05/05 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 -

specific written objection has been made[.]”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the

R&R and finds that it is well-t aken. T he Court will accept the R&R deny the 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”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan's R&R (Doc. # 12) is accepted.

2. Petitioner Johnson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. #1) is denied.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 1st day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01372-DGC Document 13 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2