Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00576/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00576-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

JEFFREY J. CANTU

Petitioner,

vs.

CRAIG APKER,

Respondent, 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-576-PHX-SMM (GEE) 

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Glenda E.

Edmonds for Report and Recommendation (Doc. 2). On July 29, 2008 the Magistrate Judge

filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court (Doc. 13). Although the Report and

Recommendation was filed, the docket reveals that Petitioner was not sent a copy, thereby

denying him the right to file objections to it. In an Order filed September 12, 2008, the Clerk

of Court was ordered to send a copy of the Report and Recommendation to Petitioner who

was given until October 10, 2008 to file any objections to it (Doc. 17). To date, no

objections have been filed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court “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 Baxter v.

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have ten days from the service of a

copy of the Magistrate's recommendation within which to file specific written objections

Case 2:08-cv-00576-SMM Document 19 Filed 11/03/08 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 -

to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to a

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of

the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on

appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). 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.” Id.

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no

Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and

adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

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, terminating this case.

DATED this 31st day of October, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00576-SMM Document 19 Filed 11/03/08 Page 2 of 2