Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02018/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02018-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Eugene McGill, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Laura Schweitzer, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-2018-PHX-GMS (JRI)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus/civil

rights complaint and United States Magistrate Judge Irwin’s Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”). (Dkt. ## 1 & 26). The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss with

prejudice the petition because Petitioner is not entitled to relief from the statute of

limitations, and his petition is therefore untimely. Dkt. # 26 at 10. 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 10 (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) (“The district judge . . . shall make

Case 2:07-cv-02018-GMS Document 27 Filed 10/07/08 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 -

a de novo determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which

specific written objection has been made[.]”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the

R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss with

prejudice 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 Irwin’s R&R (Dkt. #26) is accepted.

2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 1) is dismissed with

prejudice.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 6th day of October, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02018-GMS Document 27 Filed 10/07/08 Page 2 of 2