Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02069/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02069-0/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

Robert T. Whitecloud, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Craig Apker, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2069-PHX-NVW (GEE)

ORDER

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate

Judge Edmonds (Doc. # 20) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. # 1). The R&R recommends that the Petition be

dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or in the alternative denied on the

merits. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to

the R&R. (R&R at 5 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). No objections were filed.

Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 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);

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.”). The absence of a

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the

rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)

(“Within 10 days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s order, a party may

Case 2:07-cv-02069-NVW Document 21 Filed 04/14/08 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 -

serve and file objections to the order; a party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in

the magistrate judge’s order to which objection was not timely made.”); Simpson v. Lear

Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-

21 (9th Cir. 2002).

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and

finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and dismiss 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”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge (Doc. # 20) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment dismissing

petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2251 (Doc. #

1) for lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies, or in the alternative on the merits. The

Clerk shall terminate this action. 

DATED this 14th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02069-NVW Document 21 Filed 04/14/08 Page 2 of 2