Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01148/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01148-10/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

Isaac J.W. Mullins, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-01148-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

Magistrate Judge Anderson (Doc. # 98) regarding the remaining issue in Petitioner’s

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 1). The

order of December 17, 2008 (Doc. # 36) adopted the recommendations of Magistrate

Judge Anderson in his previous Report and Recommendation of August 10, 2007 (Doc. #

25), except referred back to Judge Anderson for further proceedings a question Petitioner

urged in his objections to the first R&R, though probably not raised in his Petition. That

was the contention that Petitioner’s state court defense counsel failed to inform him of the

potential sentence he faced at trial if he rejected the plea agreement.

The Magistrate Judge set an evidentiary hearing on the issue and appointed

counsel for Petitioner for that hearing. The R&R further recounts how, at that hearing,

Petitioner knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently withdrew that claim. (Doc. # 98.) The

Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court accept the findings that Petitioner

Case 2:06-cv-01148-NVW-LOA Document 105 Filed 09/22/08 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 -

knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently withdrew the claim that his state court counsel,

Kenneth Huls, failed to inform him of the potential sentence he faced at trial if he rejected

the plea agreement. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to

file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 5 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). Petitioner has filed a

notice “that he has no objections to Judge Anderson’s September 4, 2008 Order and

Report and Recommendation.” (Doc. # 104.)

Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. 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.”). The absence of a

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the

rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. 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.”); 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 Magistrate Judge appointed attorney Joy Bertrand as counsel for Petitioner

due to the need for counsel for an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. # 45 at 2.) That justification

has expired with Petitioner’s withdrawal of the contention that occasioned an evidentiary

hearing, and there is no other justification for appointing Criminal Justice Act counsel for

Petitioner.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that attorney Joy Bertrand is discharged and

terminated as counsel for Petitioner.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 98) is accepted.

Case 2:06-cv-01148-NVW-LOA Document 105 Filed 09/22/08 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 of the Court enter judgment

dismissing petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254 (Doc. # 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

DATED this 22nd day of September, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01148-NVW-LOA Document 105 Filed 09/22/08 Page 3 of 3