Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00134/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00134-1/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

Rigoberto Ortiz Sanchez, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-00134-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On January 20, 2012, Petitioner Rigoberto Ortiz Sanchez filed a petition for writ of

habeas corpus. (Doc. 1). On February 28, 2012, the Court issued an initial order requiring

Respondent answer the petition. The initial order also informed Petitioner that he was

required to keep his mailing address up to date. (Doc. 4 at 2). On October 25, 2012,

Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

recommending the petition for habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. 19). A copy of the R&R was

sent to Petitioner but it was returned to the Court, labeled “Out to Court, Maricopa County

will not accept.” (Doc. 20). As of January 4, 2013, Petitioner has not filed a change of

address nor has he filed objections to the R&R. 

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

Case 2:12-cv-00134-ROS Document 21 Filed 01/07/13 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 -

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

2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). No objections having been filed, the R&R will be adopted

in full.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is ADOPTED. The

petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

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

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

DATED this 7th day of January, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-00134-ROS Document 21 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 2