Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00082/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00082-1/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Wayne J. Soules, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Susan McClintock, Warden, 

Respondent.

No. CV-13-00082-TUC-RCC

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Wayne J. Soules’s Petition Under § 2241 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich’s Report and 

Recommendation (R & R) (Doc. 11). The parties did not file objections to Judge 

Markovich’s R & R. The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Markovich’s June 

25, 2014 R & R as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court and denies 

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

I. Background 

 The factual and procedural background in this case is thoroughly detailed in 

Magistrate Judge Markovich’s R & R (Doc. 11). This Court fully incorporates by 

reference the “Factual Background” section of the R & R into this Order. 

II. Discussion 

 The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court 

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

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 

Case 4:13-cv-00082-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/09/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a 

de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection 

is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 

992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Therefore, to the extent that no objection is made, arguments to 

the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) 

(failure to object to Magistrate’s report waives right to do so on appeal); see also,

Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. 

Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court 

need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 

accept the recommendation). 

 The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge’s order unless his factual findings 

are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate judge’s decision...is entitled to great deference by the 

district court.” U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001). A failure to 

raise an objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s findings of fact. Turner 

v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s 

conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an 

issue on appeal.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 

 The parties have not objected to the R & R (Doc. 11), which relieves the Court of 

its obligation to review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2003); 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(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the 

magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”). This Court considers 

the R & R to be thorough and well-reasoned. After a thorough and de novo review of the 

Case 4:13-cv-00082-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/09/14 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

record, the Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Markovich’s R & R (Doc. 11). 

 III. Conclusion 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Markovich’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law by this Court; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition Under § 2241 for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied as moot without leave to amend, and this action is 

dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close this 

case. 

 DATED this 9th day of September, 2014. 

Case 4:13-cv-00082-RCC Document 12 Filed 09/09/14 Page 3 of 3