Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-02022/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-02022-0/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

Kenneth Plante, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Terry L. Stewart, et al., 

Respondent(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 02-2022-PHX-DGC (MS)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is United Stat es M agistrate Judge Morton Sitver’s Report

and Recommendation (“R&R”) Doc. #24. The R&R recommends that t he Court deny the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. #1. The

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days t o file objections to the R&R

and that the failure to timely file objections to any determination of the Magistrate Judge

would be considered a waiver of the right to de novo review of such determination. R&R

at 20 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). The Court granted Petitioner a forty-five day extension to

file his objection to the R&R on or before September 19, 2005. Doc. #27. To date, no

objection has been filed. 

Because the Petitioner did not file objections, the Court is relieved of it s obligation

to review t he 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 object ion.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that

Case 2:02-cv-02022-DGC Document 28 Filed 10/04/05 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 -

it is well taken. T he Court will accept 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”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Mort on Sitver’s R&R (Doc.

#24) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER O RDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. #1) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2005.

Case 2:02-cv-02022-DGC Document 28 Filed 10/04/05 Page 2 of 2