Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02734/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02734-0/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

Fox Joseph Salerno, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2734-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On August 11, 2011, Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be

denied. (Doc. 11). Objections to an R&R must be filed within fourteen days. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b)(2). Petitioner did not file any objections.

A district judge “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). Where any party has

filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the district court’s review of the part

objected to is to be de novo. Id. If, however, no objections are filed, the district court need

not conduct such a review. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz.

2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of factual and

legal issues is required if objections are made, but not otherwise.”) (internal quotations and

citations omitted). Petitioner did not file any objections and the R&R will be adopted in full.

Case 2:10-cv-02734-ROS Document 12 Filed 09/19/11 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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ADOPTED. The

request for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. The Clerk shall close this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. Dismissal

of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the

ruling debatable. 

Dated this 19th day of September, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02734-ROS Document 12 Filed 09/19/11 Page 2 of 2