Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01413/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01413-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Cox, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1413-PHX-GMS (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’s Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”). Dkt. ## 11 and 20. The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss with

prejudice the Petition. Dkt. # 20 at 6. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had

ten days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be

considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 6 (citing 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review

the 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)(3) (“The district judge must determine de

novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The

Case 2:08-cv-01413-GMS Document 21 Filed 04/27/09 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 -

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

accept the R&R and [deny/grant/dismiss] the Petition/complaint. 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)(3) (“The district judge

may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’s R&R (Dkt. # 20) is ACCEPTED.

2. Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. # 11) is

DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

3. The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this action.

DATED this 27th day of April, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01413-GMS Document 21 Filed 04/27/09 Page 2 of 2