Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00974/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00974-1/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

Dennis Wayne Purdon, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-974 PHX-NVW (JCG)

ORDER

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

Magistrate Judge Guerin (Doc. # 16) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 1). The R&R recommends that the

Petition be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file

objections to the R&R. (R&R at 7 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). Petitioner filed objections

in the form of a letter on December 1, 2009. (Doc. # 17.) 

The court has considered the objections and attachments and has reviewed the

Report and Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

(stating that the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report

and Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning

of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner's objections. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

Case 2:08-cv-00974-NVW Document 18 Filed 12/21/09 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 -

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).

Insofar as the Magistrate Judge also ruled on any non-dispositive matters, error

may not be assigned to any defect in those rulings to the extent that an aggrieved party

did not file a timely objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A party may serve and file

objections to the order within 10 days after being served with a copy [of the magistrate’s

order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.”). The

absence of a timely objection precludes later assignment of error in this court or in any

higher court of the non-dispositive rulings of a magistrate judge. Simpson v. Lear

Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117,

1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 16) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

(Doc. # 1.) The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 21st day of December, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00974-NVW Document 18 Filed 12/21/09 Page 2 of 2