Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01320/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01320-1/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 

Sean Patrick Husband, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-13-01320-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner Sean Patrick Husband’s Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”). (Docs. 1, 41.) The R&R recommends that the Court deny 

the Petition. (Doc. 41 at 38.) 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 38–39 (citing 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2003)). 

 Respondents did not file an objection. Petitioner filed an objection on February 9, 

2015, which the Court struck on March 18, 2015, for failure to comply with the Local 

Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 49.) The Court granted Petitioner leave to file an 

amended objection by April 2, 2015. (Id.) Petitioner did not file an amended objection, 

which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

Case 2:13-cv-01320-DLR Document 50 Filed 04/16/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

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 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)(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 that Magistrate Judge Aspey’s R&R (Doc. 41) is accepted. 

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

Corpus (Doc. 1) is dismissed. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 16th day of April, 2015. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:13-cv-01320-DLR Document 50 Filed 04/16/15 Page 2 of 2