Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01999/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01999-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Andrew M. Love, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Ivan C. Bartos, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-01999-PHX-NVW (LOA)

ORDER

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

Judge Anderson (Doc. # 12) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 1). The R&R recommends that the Petition be denied.

The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to the R&R.

(R&R at 9 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). Petitioner has filed objections (Doc. # 13). The time

for Respondents to file any reply has expired, and no reply has been filed. 

The court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the

court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning

of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner's objections. 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”).

Case 2:06-cv-01999-NVW Document 14 Filed 06/19/07 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 -

Insofar as the Magistrate Judge also ruled on any non-dispositive matters, error may

not be assigned to any defect in those rulings to the extent that an aggrieved party did not file

a timely objection. 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.”). The absence of a timely objection precludes later assignment of error

in this court or in any higher court of the non-dispositive rulings of a magistrate judge.

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). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge (Doc. # 12) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 1) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment denying

the Petition. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 19th day of June 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01999-NVW Document 14 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 2