Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00915/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00915-2/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Dell Rainbow Vanderschuit,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00915-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(“Petition”). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 

44) recommending that the Petition be denied. 

 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby 

accepts the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district 

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

subject of an objection” (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review 

the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but 

not otherwise” (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 

1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

 Based on the foregoing, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

Case 2:15-cv-00915-JAT Document 45 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

44) is ACCEPTED; accordingly, 

$ Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed with 

prejudice; 

$ in the event Petitioner files an appeal and consistent with the unobjected-to 

recommendation in the R&R (Doc. 44 at 33), the Court denies issuance of a certificate of 

appealability because jurists of reason would not find the procedural rulings debatable 

and Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right; 

and, 

$ the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice. 

 Dated this 21st day of September, 2016. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00915-JAT Document 45 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 2