Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00074/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00074-1/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

Ishmael Abdul-Haqq, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

A.D.W. Cluff, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0074-PHX-EHC (LOA)

ORDER

On January 11, 2008, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1),

as supplemented (Dkt. 10), under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state court conviction

by a jury of attempted second degree murder, a dangerous offense, in the Superior Court of

Maricopa County, State of Arizona. On April 30, 2004, the trial court sentenced Petitioner

to a slightly aggravated term of 18 years of imprisonment. 

The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson who filed a

Report and Recommendation on June 30, 2008 recommending that the Petition be denied

(Dkt. 13). Petitioner has not filed an Objection or otherwise responded to the Report and

Recommendation. 

 Standard of Review

The district court reviews de novo the portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation to which there is a filed objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("a judge of

Case 2:08-cv-00074-EHC Document 14 Filed 08/05/08 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 -

the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, ..., to which

objection is made."); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003). The district court is not required to review any issue that is not the subject of an

objection. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D. Ariz. 2003), citing Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

Discussion

In the absence of a filed objection by Petitioner, the Court adopts in full the Report

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates the same as a part of this

Order. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt.

13) is adopted in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. 1), as supplemented (Dkt. 10), is denied.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00074-EHC Document 14 Filed 08/05/08 Page 2 of 2