Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03136/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03136-2/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

Anthony Baldonado,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Darla Elliott, et al.,

Respondents. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3136-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

On May 8, 2006, Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson filed a Report and

Recommendation, advising this Court that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt.

1) should be denied on the grounds that his claims are procedurally defaulted and barred from

federal habeas review. (Dkt. 13 at 7-9.) In addition, Judge Anderson denied Petitioner’s

request for voluntary dismissal as futile because the statute of limitations has expired and a

subsequent federal petition would therefore be untimely. (Id. at 9.) Petitioner’s request for

voluntary dismissal was also denied because he has not actually exhausted any claims, and,

thus, there are no claims to hold in abeyance. (Id. at 10.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed

objections to Judge Anderson’s Report and Recommendation.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court must

“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “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)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391,

Case 2:05-cv-03136-SMM Document 14 Filed 06/16/06 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 -

1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983)). 

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives his right to

challenge the Magistrate’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate’s legal

conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.

1998) (failure to object to Magistrate’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in

considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980)).

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, and no objections having been made by Plaintiff thereto, the Court hereby

incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson. (Dkt. 13.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Dkt. 1) and this action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall

terminate this action accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for voluntary dismissal be

DENIED. (Dkt. 12.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this

Order to all parties as well as to Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson.

DATED this 15th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03136-SMM Document 14 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 of 2