Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00756/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00756-1/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 

Reuben Charles Cowan, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Laura Escapule, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00756-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner Reuben Cowan’s Amended Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus and Magistrate Judge Michelle Burns’ Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”). (Docs. 4, 15.) The R&R recommends that the Court deny 

the Petition. (Doc. 15 at 17.) 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 16-17 (citing 

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

2003)). 

 Neither party filed 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.”). 

Case 2:15-cv-00756-DLR Document 16 Filed 05/19/16 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 

The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and agrees with Magistrate Judge Burns’ 

recommendations. 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 Burns’ R&R (Doc. 15) is ACCEPTED, 

Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 4) is DISMISSED, a 

Certificate of Appealability is DENIED, and Petitioner may not proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 19th day of May, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-00756-DLR Document 16 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 2