Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03045/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03045-1/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

Joel Shapel Magnuson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

John Ontiveros; et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-3045-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending is Petitioner’s Motion for Immediate Release (Doc. 27) and Motion for

Release (Doc. 36). On March 5, 2008, Magistrate Judge Jay Irwin filed a report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that both motions be denied. (Doc. 63) No

objections were filed by either party.

The 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

Case 2:06-cv-03045-ROS Document 64 Filed 03/28/08 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 -

of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). No objection having been

made, the Court will adopt the R&R in full.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 63) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s Motion for Immediate Release (Doc. 27)

is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s Motion for Release (Doc. 36) is

DENIED.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-03045-ROS Document 64 Filed 03/28/08 Page 2 of 2