Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01724/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01724-1/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

Jose Alfred Perez-Valenzuela, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora B Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1724-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Jose Alfred Perez-Valenzuela’s petition for

writ of habeas corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”). Dkt. ##1, 18. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the

petition and dismiss the Petition with prejudice because the Petitioner’s three grounds for

relief are procedurally defaulted. Dkt. #18 at 7. 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 8-9 (citing 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 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)(3) (“The district judge must determine de

novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The

Case 2:08-cv-01724-DGC Document 19 Filed 09/02/09 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 -

Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition and dismiss the Petition with prejudice. 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)(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 Edward C. Voss’s R&R (Dkt. #18) is accepted.

2. Petitioner Jose Alfred Perez-Valenzuela’s petition for writ of habeas corpus

(Dkt. #1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 2nd day of September, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01724-DGC Document 19 Filed 09/02/09 Page 2 of 2