Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00586/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00586-1/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 

Michael Blas Rivera, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00586-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

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

Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf, (Doc. 26), regarding Petitioner Michael Rivera’s 

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Doc. 1). The R&R 

recommends that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate 

Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (Doc. 

26 at 40 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).) Rivera timely filed an objection on March 9, 

2016. (Doc. 27.) 

Rivera’s objection states that “Petitioner is somewhat perplexed and confused 

about the Magistrate[’]s report and recommendation. The Petitioner will simply object to 

the Magistrate[’]s findings, and ask the District Court to both review his Writ and grant 

the Petitioner relief.” (Id. at 2.) But the Court is obligated to review only those portions 

of the R&R to which Rivera specifically objects, 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 

Case 2:15-cv-00586-DLR Document 29 Filed 04/20/16 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 

the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made), and Rivera’s 

objection contains no analysis, cites no case law, and does challenge any specific portion 

of the R&R. Thus, the Court is relieved of its obligation to review the R&R and accepts 

the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. See Sullivan v. Schriro, No. CV-04-1517-PHXDGC, 2006 WL 1516005, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 30, 2006) (noting that “circuit courts 

rightly hold that general objections to an R & R are tantamount to no objection at all”). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s R&R, (Doc. 26), is 

ACCEPTED and Rivera’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. 1), is DENIED. In 

addition, no certificate of appealability shall issue and Rivera is not authorized to appeal 

in forma pauperis. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 20th day of April, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00586-DLR Document 29 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 2