Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00297/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00297-1/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

Frederick Michael Ellis, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Keith Hartsuck, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-0297-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(“Petition”) (Doc. 1). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

(Doc. 16) recommending that the Petition be denied. 

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts

the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not

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

(emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis

in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16)

is ACCEPTED; accordingly,

Case 2:11-cv-00297-JAT Document 17 Filed 06/21/12 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 -

• Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and

dismissed with prejudice, 

• consistent with the recommendation in the R&R (to which there was no

objection), and in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies

issuance of a certificate of appealability because jurists of reason would not

find the procedural rulings debatable and Petitioner has not made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right on the remaining claims, and

• the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice.

DATED this 21st day of June, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-00297-JAT Document 17 Filed 06/21/12 Page 2 of 2