Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00655/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00655-1/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

Charles Lee Patterson,

Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No.CIV 08-0655-PHX-SMM (HCE) 

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. #6). The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Hector C.

Estrada for a Report and Recommendation (Doc. #5). On February 24, 2010, the Magistrate

Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court (Doc. #32). To date, no

objections have been filed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. Sullivan,

923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service of a copy

of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific written objections to the

Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s

factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan,

158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is

Case 2:08-cv-00655-SMM Document 33 Filed 03/22/10 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 -

a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.”

Id.

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no

Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth,

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #32).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

is DENIED and DISMISSED, terminating this case. The Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because Petitioner has not made

substantial showings of the denials of constitutional rights, and dismissals were justified by

plain procedural bars and jurists of reason would not find the procedural rulings debatable.

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-00655-SMM Document 33 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 2