Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01844/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01844-2/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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kraig Clark, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1844-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and

United States Magistrate Judge Anderson’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Dkt.

## 1, 11. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the petition. Dkt. # 11 at 15. 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 15-16 (citing [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72,

6(a), 6(e); 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 has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is wellCase 2:08-cv-01844-GMS Document 12 Filed 07/07/09 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 -

taken. 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 HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Anderson’s R&R (Dkt. # 11) is ACCEPTED.

2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. # 1) is DENIED.

3. The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this action.

DATED this 7th day of July, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01844-GMS Document 12 Filed 07/07/09 Page 2 of 2