Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01819/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01819-0/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

Danny Claude Cotton, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro; et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1819-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before this Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(R&R) (Doc. #13), recommending that this Court deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc.

#11).

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219,

1126 (D.Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”). District

courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject

of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28

Case 2:06-cv-01819-JAT Document 18 Filed 03/04/08 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 -

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

[report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).

In this case, neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. #13) is accepted and adopted;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #11) is

denied (without prejudice to re-raising any arguments therein in objection to any future report

and recommendation on the merits of this case, if appropriate); and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for extension of time (Doc. #15) and

the motion to stay (Doc. #16) remain pending before the Magistrate Judge.

DATED this 4th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01819-JAT Document 18 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 2