Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01342/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01342-1/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

David Lin Seagle, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1342-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and

Recommendation. (Doc. 13) Magistrate Judge Burns recommends the petition for writ of

habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner did not file any objections. 

A district judge “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). Where any party has

filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations, the district

court’s review of the part objected to is to be de novo. Id. If, however, no objections are

filed, the district court need not conduct such a review. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp.

2d 1219, 1226 (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.”)

(internal quotations and citations omitted). Petitioner did not file any objections and the

R&R will be adopted in full.

Case 2:10-cv-01342-ROS Document 14 Filed 06/02/11 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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the Petition

(Doc. 1) shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall enter judgment in

favor of Respondents.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. Dismissal

of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the

ruling debatable. 

DATED this 1st day of June, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01342-ROS Document 14 Filed 06/02/11 Page 2 of 2