Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00718/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00718-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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 

Alfonso Bobbie Rhone, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Dennis Smith, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-00718-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

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

United States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). 

Docs. 1, 27. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. Doc. 27 at 14. 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 14-15 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 

72; 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 welltaken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

Case 2:12-cv-00718-GMS Document 28 Filed 02/25/13 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 

(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:

 1. Magistrate Judge Bade’s R&R (Doc. 27) is accepted. 

 2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied. 

 3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 4. A Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right. 

 Dated this 22nd day of February, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-00718-GMS Document 28 Filed 02/25/13 Page 2 of 2