Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00251/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00251-1/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

Edwin Herbert Hundsdorfer, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Robert Stewart, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0251-PHX-DGC (JRI)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Edwin Herbert Hundsdorfer’s petition for writ

of habeas corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Irwin’s Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”). Dkt. ##1, 22. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss Grounds 1 and 3 of

the Petition with prejudice and deny the remainder of the petition. Dkt. #22 at 17. The

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten 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 17 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(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 will accept the R&R and dismiss with prejudice Grounds 1 and 3 of the Petition and

Case 2:08-cv-00251-DGC Document 23 Filed 06/18/09 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 -

deny the remainder of 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 Irwin’s R&R (Dkt. #22) is accepted.

2. Grounds 1 and 3 of Petitioner Edwin Herbert Hundsdorfer’s petition for writ

of habeas corpus (Dkt. #1) are dismissed with prejudice. The remainder of Petitioner

Edwin Herbert Hundsdorfer’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. #1) is denied.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 17th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00251-DGC Document 23 Filed 06/18/09 Page 2 of 2