Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00094/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00094-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Freddie Lee Thornton, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-00094-PHX-GMS (JRI)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and

United States Magistrate Judge Irwin’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 1, 15.

The R&R recommends dismissing with prejudice in part and denying in part. The Magistrate

Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen 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 23-24 (citing 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 has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will

Case 2:09-cv-00094-GMS Document 16 Filed 03/03/11 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 -

accept the R&R and dismiss with prejudice/deny the Petition. 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 Irwin’s R&R (Doc. 15) is accepted.

2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is dismissed with

prejudice in part and denied in part.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

4. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event

Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

DATED this 3rd day of March, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-00094-GMS Document 16 Filed 03/03/11 Page 2 of 2