Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01066/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01066-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

Charles Fordjour, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1066-PHX-JAT

ORDER

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

(“Petition”) (Doc. #1). On April 19, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. #26) recommending that the Petition be denied.

Objections were due by May 3, 2006. On May 5, 2006, Petitioner sought a thirty day

extension of time to file objections. The Court granted Petitioner until June 15, 2006, to file

objection (which was a 43 day extension). Petitioner did not file objections.

Thus, neither party has filed objections to the R&R in this case. 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

Case 2:05-cv-01066-JAT Document 29 Filed 06/28/06 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 -

otherwise” (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226

(D. Ariz. 2003).

Accordingly,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. #26) is ACCEPTED;

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

(Doc. #1) is DENIED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

DATED this 27th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01066-JAT Document 29 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 2