Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_18-cv-08180/USCOURTS-azd-3_18-cv-08180-1/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

Darrick Michael Loff,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-18-08180-PCT-DLR

ORDER 

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 22), which recommends that Petitioner’s Amended 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice and that a 

Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. The 

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the 

R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to 

obtain review of the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2003). Neither party filed objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; 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.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). “Unless this court has definite and firm conviction that the [Magistrate 

Case 3:18-cv-08180-DLR Document 23 Filed 02/12/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

Judge] committed a clear error of judgment, [this court] will not disturb [the] decision.” 

Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted).

The Court has nonetheless independently reviewed the R&R and finds that it is welltaken. The Court therefore will accept the R&R in its entirety. 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”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The 

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns’ R&R (Doc. 22) is ACCEPTED. 

Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and the case is dismissed. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 

and terminate the case.

Dated this 11th day of February, 2020.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-08180-DLR Document 23 Filed 02/12/20 Page 2 of 2