Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01654/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01654-1/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

Don L. Meeker, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Terry L. Stewart, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1654-PHX-ROS 

ORDER

On January 25, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus . (Doc. 1)

On November 17, 2006, Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds issued a report and

Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the petition be denied. (Doc. 13) No

objections were filed by either party.

The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is "clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1126 (D. Ariz. 2003) ("Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, 'but not otherwise."'). District

courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject

Case 2:05-cv-01654-ROS Document 14 Filed 12/05/06 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 -

of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). No objection having been

made, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is ADOPTED,

Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED this 1st day of December, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01654-ROS Document 14 Filed 12/05/06 Page 2 of 2