Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00623/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00623-1/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

Felipe Gabriel Samaniego-Lugo, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-0623-TUC-RCC (BPV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Felipe Gabriel Samaniego-Lugo’s Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco’s Report and

Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 17). The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge

Velasco’s R & R (Doc. 17) as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court and

denies Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1).

I. Background

The state level factual and procedural background in this case is thoroughly detailed

in the “Factual and Procedural Background” portion of Magistrate Judge Velasco’s R & R

(Doc. 17). This Court fully incorporates by reference the “Factual and Procedural

Background” section of the R & R into this Order.

On September 22, 2011, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Respondents filed an Answer on March 29, 2012

Case 4:11-cv-00623-RCC Document 18 Filed 12/06/12 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 -

(Doc. 14). On November 16, 2012 Magistrate Judge Velasco issued a R&R recommending

that this Court dismiss the action in its entirety as untimely. (Doc. 17). Petitioner did not file

any objections to the R&R.

II. Discussion

The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U .S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may

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

the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1).

Where the parties object to a R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de

novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).

When no objection is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v.

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). Therefore, to the extent that no objection has been

made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187

(9th Cir.1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see

also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist.

Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court need

only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

recommendation).

The Court will not disturb a Magistrate Judge’s Order unless his factual findings are

clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

“[T]he magistrate judge’s decision ... is entitled to great deference by the district court.”

United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir.2001). A failure to raise an

objection waives all objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact. Turner v. Duncan,

158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is

Case 4:11-cv-00623-RCC Document 18 Filed 12/06/12 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 -

a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.”

Id. (internal citations omitted).

Petitioner has filed no objections to the R&R (Doc. 17). The parties have not objected

to this recommendation, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review. See United

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,

149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (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.”). This Court considers the R&R to be thorough and wellreasoned. After a thorough and de novo review of the record, the Court will ADOPT the

R&R of Magistrate Judge Velasco (Doc. 17).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Velasco’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 17) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact

and conclusions of law by this Court;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

1) is denied without leave to amend, and this action is dismissed with prejudice, and the

Clerk should enter judgment and close this case.

DATED this 6th day of December, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00623-RCC Document 18 Filed 12/06/12 Page 3 of 3