Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00839/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00839-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
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

Maria L. Villajin, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Michael Mukasey,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV08-0839 PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Maria L. Villajin’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’s Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”). Dkt. ##1, 26. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the petition because the

Court finds that Petitioner’s claim in ground two of ineffective assistance of counsel is

without merit. Dkt. #26 at 4. 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 4-5 (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

Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the

Case 2:08-cv-00839-DGC Document 28 Filed 08/04/09 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 -

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. #26) is accepted.

2. Petitioner Maria L. Villajin’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. #1) is

denied.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00839-DGC Document 28 Filed 08/04/09 Page 2 of 2