Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01423/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01423-1/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

Petitioner Anthony Lopez Rios has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 7). The Honorable Eileen S. Willett, United States 

Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 14), 

recommending that the Court dismiss the Second Amended Petition as untimely. Judge 

Willett advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) 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. (Doc. 14 at 9) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; 

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)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. 

Anthony Lopez Rios,

 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-19-01423-PHX-SPL

ORDER
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

The Court will adopt the R&R and deny the 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)(3) (“The district judge 

may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

14) is accepted and adopted by the Court;

2. That the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 7) is denied and dismissed with prejudice;

3. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal are denied; and

4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

Dated this 21st day of January, 2020.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge