Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01221/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01221-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
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

Michael Johnson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

D. Smith, Warden - F.C.I. Phoenix, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CV-10-1221-PHX-ROS (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’ May 16, 2011 Report

and Recommendation. (Doc. 13). Magistrate Judge Voss recommends the petition for writ

of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner did not file any objections. 

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.; see also United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, but not otherwise.”) (internal

quotations and citations omitted).

No objections being made, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in

full.

Case 2:10-cv-01221-ROS Document 14 Filed 06/10/11 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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the Petition

(Doc. 1) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.

DATED this 10th day of June, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01221-ROS Document 14 Filed 06/10/11 Page 2 of 2