Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08102/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08102-4/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

 1 Respondents contend some of Petitioner’s claims for habeas relief were not timely

filed and that all of Petitioner’s claims were procedurally defaulted in the state courts.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Forrest Dunbar, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-8102-PCT-SMM (MEA)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s prisoner civil rights complaint (Doc.1),

filed by Christopher A. Valdez. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey.

On October 18, 2007, Petitioner filed a pro se petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents filed an Answer1

 to Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (“Answer”) (Docket No. 19) on March 20, 2008. On May 23, 2008, Magistrate Judge

Aspey filed a Report and Recommendation on the matter. 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,

Case 3:07-cv-08102-SMM Document 36 Filed 06/18/08 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 -

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 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.”

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

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 herein,

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey (Doc. 30).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this case

accordingly.

DATED this 17th day of June, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-08102-SMM Document 36 Filed 06/18/08 Page 2 of 2