Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00064/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00064-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Alexander Crooks, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Respondent(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV05–64 -PHX-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Alexander Crook’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson’s Report and

Recommendation (“ R&R”). Docs. ##1, 10. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the

p et it ion because Petitioner failed to comply with the Court’s September 23, 2005 order t o

immediately notify the Court of any change in his address. Doc. #10. On September 29,

2005 and October 3, 2005, the Court received ret urned mail addressed to Plaintiff. Docs.

##5,6. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s Show Cause Order issued on Sep t ember

29, 2005, explaining why his action should not be dismissed for failure to comply wit h t he

Court’s orders. Doc. #10. The Magistrate Judge advised t he parties that they had ten

days to file objections to the R&R and that the failure to t imely file objections to any

determination of the Magistrate Judge would be considered a waiver of the right t o review

of such determination. Id. at 3 (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)]).

Case 2:05-cv-00064-DGC Document 12 Filed 12/29/05 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 -

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 has nonetheless reviewed the

R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The 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”); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Anderson’s R&R (Doc. #10) is accepted.

2. Petitioner Crooks’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. #1) is denied.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 29th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00064-DGC Document 12 Filed 12/29/05 Page 2 of 2