Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02514/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02514-1/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 1

 Petitioner's last name in the docket of this case is listed as Lanzier.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eric John Lanzieri, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Arizona Attorney General; et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2514-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner,

Eric John Lanzieri.1

 On September 13, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation which recommends that the Petition in this case be denied (Doc. #12). No

objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219,

1126 (D.Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”). District

Case 2:04-cv-02514-JAT Document 13 Filed 11/10/05 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 -

courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject

of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

[report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).

No objections having been made,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #12) is accepted and

adopted, the Petition in this case is denied, with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall

enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 10th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02514-JAT Document 13 Filed 11/10/05 Page 2 of 2