Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00274/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00274-2/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

Aaron Joseph Bishop, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-274-PHX-SMM (VAM)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis for

Report and Recommendation. On December 15, 2006 the Magistrate Judge filed a Report

and Recommendation with this Court. To date, no objections have been filed.

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

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9th Cir. 1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court

of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings. Orand v. United

States, 602 F.2d 207 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d

Case 2:06-cv-00274-SMM Document 16 Filed 01/05/07 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 -

196 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514 (9th Cir. 1989) (overruled on

other grounds). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be

weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; 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 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. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth, 

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

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 13).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. 1) is denied, thereby terminating this case.

DATED this 5th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00274-SMM Document 16 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 2