Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01399/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01399-1/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

Jason Lusian, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Warden Kimble, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-1399-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Jason Lusian’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’ Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”). Docs. ##1, 16. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the petition because

the petition is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), (2). Doc. #16 at 5. The Magistrate

Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to the R&R and that the

failure to timely file objections to any determination of the Magistrate Judge would be

considered a waiver of the right to review of such determination. Id. at 5 (citing [28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1); 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) (“The district judge . . . shall make a de novo

determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific

Case 2:05-cv-01399-DGC Document 17 Filed 05/11/06 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 -

written objection has been made[.]”). 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) (same).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’ R&R (Doc. #16) is accepted.

2. Petitioner Jason Lusian’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. #1) is denied.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 10th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01399-DGC Document 17 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 2