Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02785/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02785-1/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

Jon Von Holten

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2785 PHX DGC (JI)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Jon Von Holten’s amended petition for writ

of habeas corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”). Dkt. ##10, 23. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss

with prejudice Grounds One, Two, Four, Five and Seven and deny Grounds Three and Six

of the amended petition. Dkt. #23 at 33. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they

had ten days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be

considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 33 (citing Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review

the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; 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) (“The district judge . . . shall make a de novo

determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific

written objection has been made[.]”). The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the

Case 2:04-cv-02785-DGC Document 25 Filed 11/27/06 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 -

amended petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (same).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin’s R&R (Dkt. #23) is accepted.

2. Petitioner Jon Von Holten’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt.

#10) is dismissed.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 22nd day of November, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02785-DGC Document 25 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 2