Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01383/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01383-1/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

James E. Robinson, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1383-PHX-GMS (MHB)

ORDER

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

United States Magistrate Judge Burns’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 1, 13.

The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the petition. Doc. 13 at p. 8. The

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R

and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain

review of the R&R. Id. at 8 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(b);

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

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)(3) (“The district judge must determine de

novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The

Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will

Case 2:11-cv-01383-GMS Document 14 Filed 06/11/12 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 -

accept the R&R and deny and dismiss 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)(3) (“The district judge may

accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return

the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Burns’ R&R (Doc. 13) is accepted.

2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and

dismissed.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

4. A Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

is denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and

jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

DATED this 11th day of June, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01383-GMS Document 14 Filed 06/11/12 Page 2 of 2