Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02203/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02203-0/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

Christopher Wayne Brown, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Ricardo E. Chavez, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2203-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’s Report and

Recommendation, which was filed on October 9, 2009. (Doc. 12) Magistrate Judge Voss

recommends the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice,

Petitioner has not filed any objections. Also before the Court is Movant Olaf Juda’s Motion

for service of Amicus Response (Doc. 14). 

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 USC § 636(b). Where any party has

filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations, the district

court’s review of the part objected to is to be de novo. Id.; see also United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

Case 2:08-cv-02203-ROS Document 15 Filed 12/15/09 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 -

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, but not otherwise.”) (internal

quotations and citations omitted).

No objections being made, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in

full. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, R. 11, the Court must “issue or deny a certificate of

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of

appealability will be denied because the applicant has not made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C.A § 2253(c)(2)

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the

Petition (Doc. 1) shall be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

FURTHER ORDERED a certificate of appealability IS DENIED.

FURTHER ORDERED Movant Olaf Juda’s Motion for service of Amicus

Response (Doc. 14) IS DENIED. 

DATED this 14th day of December, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02203-ROS Document 15 Filed 12/15/09 Page 2 of 2