Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00797/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00797-2/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

Lawrence DAWSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Dora SCHRIRO, et al.,

Respondents. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-0797-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Lawrence Dawson's Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus. [Doc. No. 1] On December 1, 2005, Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson filed a

Report and Recommendation, advising this Court that Petitioner's Motion should be denied.

[Doc. No. 47] Petitioner filed a "Motion for Amicus Curiae" on January 3, 2006. [Doc. No. 49]

In his Motion, Petitioner stated that he did not receive the Report and Recommendation until

December 24, 2005, and Petitioner included his objections to Judge Anderson's Report and

Recommendation in his Motion. Thus, the Court will construe the Motion for Amicus Curiae

as a Motion for Extension of Time, as well as Petitioner's objections. On January 6, 2006,

Magistrate Judge Anderson filed an amended Report and Recommendation, and Petitioner was

again afforded time to file objections. Thus, the Court will deny Petitioner's Motion for

Extension of Time as moot, because he was given additional time and did indeed file "Support

for Habeas Corpus" on February 1, 2006, in response to the amended Report and

Recommendation. In reviewing the Report and Recommendation from Judge Anderson, the

Court will also consider all of Petitioner's filings in response thereto.

Case 2:05-cv-00797-SMM Document 53 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 3
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 -

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court must

"make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “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)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391,

1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of

conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings; the Court then may

decide the dispositive motion on the applicable law. Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208

(9th Cir. 1979) (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)).

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives its right to

challenge the Magistrate's factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate's legal

conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.

1998) (failure to object to Magistrate's legal conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering

the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156

(9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980)).

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, and the objections having been made by Petitioner thereto, the Court hereby

incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation with the following

addition.

In his objections, Petitioner essentially restates his health problems, which the Court

finds Magistrate Judge Anderson sufficiently addressed. Thus, the Court will not engage in

further analysis of the issue. Petitioner's other argument in his objections is that the exhaustion

requirement for a habeas petition may be excused. In support of his argument, Petitioner cites

cases from the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits. The Court notes, however, that Magistrate Judge

Anderson did not reach the exhaustion argument originally proferred by the state. Instead,

Judge Anderson found that Petitioner's claim is time-barred. As stated above, the Court adopts

Case 2:05-cv-00797-SMM Document 53 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

that finding and need not address exhaustion. Last, the Court finds that Petitioner's most recent

filing essentially re-states his previous arguments, e.g. his disabilities and his lack of legal

training. Because nothing new is presented and because the Court finds those arguments have

been sufficiently addressed by Judge Anderson, the Court will not address those issues further.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts the amended Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson. [Doc. No. 50] Because the Court adopts Judge

Anderson's amended Report and Recommendation, the Court declines to adopt Judge

Anderson's original Report and Recommendation. [Doc. No. 47]

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

[Doc. No. 1] is DENIED, thus terminating this case, CV 05-0797-PHX-SMM.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. No.

49] is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order

to all parties as well as to Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson.

 DATED this 22nd day of February, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00797-SMM Document 53 Filed 02/23/06 Page 3 of 3