Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00540/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00540-1/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

Lee Comier, Jr.,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 05-00540 PHX NVW (CRP)

ORDER

Pending before the court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. # 1) and Petitioner's Petition for Release of a Prisoner in

a Habeas Corpus Proceeding (doc. # 25), the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle (doc. # 26), and Petitioner's Response to the R&R (doc. #

29). The R&R recommends that the court grant in part the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus and deny Petitioner's motion for release. (R&R at 18).

Respondent has filed no objections and therefore waived any objection to the R&R

to the extent it is unfavorable to Respondent. The district judge need not review any of the

magistrate judge’s determinations on dispositive matters to which timely objections have not

been made. 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.”).

Case 2:05-cv-00540-NVW-CRP Document 30 Filed 03/16/07 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 -

Insofar as the magistrate judge also ruled on any non-dispositive matters, no party

may hereafter assign error to any defect in those rulings because no party filed a timely

objection within 10 days of such ruling. 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 the magistrate judge’s order

to which objection was not timely made.”). The absence of a timely objection in the district

court precludes appellate review of the non-dispositive rulings of a magistrate judge.

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 considered Petitioner's objections and reviewed the Report and

Recommendation de novo to the extent of the specific objections made. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo determination of

those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made).

The court agrees with the magistrate judge's determinations, accepts his recommended

decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner's

objections. 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 Magistrate

Judge Pyle (doc. # 26) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Release of a Prisoner in a

Habeas Corpus Proceeding (doc. # 25) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Grounds One, Three, and Four of the Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus are dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the relief sought in Ground Two of the Petition

(ineffective assistance of counsel) is denied, except that relief is granted to the extent that

Petitioner's conviction in the State Court and sentence of 12.5 years on Count 9 for attempted

murder in the second degree are vacated, without affecting the sentence on all other counts

of conviction of 95.25 years imprisonment.

Case 2:05-cv-00540-NVW-CRP Document 30 Filed 03/16/07 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall

terminate this action. The clerk shall forward copies of the magistrate judge’s R&R and of

this Order to the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court and to the Hon. James H.

Keppel, Criminal Presiding Judge.

DATED this 15th day of March 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00540-NVW-CRP Document 30 Filed 03/16/07 Page 3 of 3