Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03573/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03573-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Adan Tavizon-Jimenez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro; Ivan Bartos, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3573-PHX-JAT

ORDER

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

(“Petition”) (Doc. #1). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

(Doc. #22) recommending that the Petition be denied. In "response" to the R&R, Petitioner

sent the Magistrate Judge a Letter (which was placed into the record at Doc. #23). In the

Letter, Petitioner indicates that he does not wish to appeal to the Ninth Circuit court of

appeals and that he intends to return to state court to pursue his remedies there. 

The Court has not construed this letter to be objections to the R&R. Because neither

party has filed objections to the R&R, 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

Case 2:05-cv-03573-JAT Document 24 Filed 12/01/06 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

1

 The Court is not undertaking to rule on whether, or advise Petitioner whether, he

has available state court remedies. The Court is merely summarizing the R&R.

- 2 -

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).

However, referring back to the Letter, nothing in the R&R indicates that Petitioner has

available remedies in state court.1

 Thus, if Petitioner failed to file objections to the R&R

based on some misunderstanding of the R&R, Petitioner may, within 30 days of this Order,

move to re-open this case and contemporaneously file his objections to the R&R. If that

occurs, the Court will consider the objections as if they had been timely filed.

Based on the foregoing,

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

#22) is ACCEPTED;

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

(Doc. #1) is DENIED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE; the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

DATED this 1st day of December, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03573-JAT Document 24 Filed 12/01/06 Page 2 of 2