Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02007/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02007-2/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 

Earl Felton Crago, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-02007-TUC-FRZ

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge 

Leslie Bowman entered on April 5, 2016. See Doc. 47. In the Report and 

Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Bowman recommends that this Court deny Petitioner 

Earl Felton Crago’s amended petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254 (the “Petition”) [Doc. 25]. In the Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge 

advised the parties that they may serve and file written objections within 14 days of being 

served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation and that if objections were not 

filed, any objection would be deemed waived. See Doc. 47 at p. 16. No objections have 

been filed. See Dkt. 

Standard of Review 

 This 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). “Within fourteen days 

after being served with a copy [of a report and recommendation], any party may serve 

and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided 

Case 4:14-cv-02007-FRZ Document 49 Filed 04/26/16 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 

by rule of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those 

portions of the report [and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). Section 636(b)(1), Title 28 U.S.C., has been interpreted as not “requir[ing] 

some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed.” Schmidt v. 

Johnstone, 263 F.Supp. 1219, 1220 (D. Ariz. 2003), quoting Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 

140, 149-50, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Instead, district courts are not 

required to conduct “any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an 

objection.” Id., quoting Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149, 106 S.Ct. 466. 

Analysis 

 Neither party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. 

Accordingly, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Petition 

be denied. 

Conclusion 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 47] is 

ACCEPTED and Petitioner’s Petition [Doc. 25] is DENIED and this action is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this 

case. 

 Dated this 26th day of April, 2016. 

Case 4:14-cv-02007-FRZ Document 49 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 2