Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00844/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00844-1/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

Jeffrey Michael Charley, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora Schriro, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0844 PHX-NVW (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

Magistrate Judge Voss (Doc. # 8) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 1). The R&R recommends that the

Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge

advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 4-5

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). Petitioner filed objections on August 14, 2008 (Doc. # 13),

and Respondent filed a response on August 21, 2008. (Doc. # 14.) 

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that

the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning

of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner's objections. See 28 U.S.C. §

Case 2:07-cv-00844-NVW Document 15 Filed 09/03/08 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 -

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”).

Insofar as the Magistrate Judge also ruled on any non-dispositive matters, error

may not be assigned to any defect in those rulings to the extent that an aggrieved party

did not file a timely objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“Within 10 days after being served

with a copy of the magistrate judge’s order, a party may serve and file objections to the

order; a party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in the magistrate judge’s order to

which objection was not timely made.”). The absence of a timely objection precludes

later assignment of error in this court or in any higher court of the non-dispositive rulings

of a magistrate judge. Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir.

1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 8) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. # 1) and dismissing it with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 2nd day of September, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00844-NVW Document 15 Filed 09/03/08 Page 2 of 2