Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02307/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02307-2/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Kathy Ann Fisher, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-12-02307-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

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

United States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). 

Docs. 1, 11. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. Doc. 11 at 9. The 

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the 

R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to 

obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 9 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; 

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

 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (“The district judge must determine 

de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected 

to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The 

Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that 

Case 2:12-cv-02307-GMS Document 12 Filed 05/30/13 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 district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, (“The district judge may 

accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return 

the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Magistrate Judge Bade’s R&R (Doc. 11) is accepted. 

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

 3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 4. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the 

event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court=s procedural ruling debatable. See 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 30th day of May, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02307-GMS Document 12 Filed 05/30/13 Page 2 of 2