Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00072/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00072-0/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

Prentice Greer, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Conrad M. Graber, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 12-CV-72-TUC-RCC

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Prentice Greer’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (Doc. 1) and Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro’s Report and Recommendation

(R&R) (Doc. 11). The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s July 13, 2012

R&R (Doc. 11) as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court and denies

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1).

This Court fully incorporates by reference the Background section of the R & R into

this Order. Petitioner filed his Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (Doc. 1) on January 30, 2012. Respondent timely responded and Magistrate Judge

Ferraro issued an R&R recommending that this dismiss the petition. No objections have

been filed.

The duties of the district court in connection with a R&R are set forth in Rule 72 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U .S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may

“accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return

Case 4:12-cv-00072-RCC-DTF Document 12 Filed 08/07/12 Page 1 of 3
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 -

the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1).

Where the parties object to a R&R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de

novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).

When no objection is filed, the district court need not review the R&R de novo. Wang v.

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). Therefore to the extent that no objection has been

made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187

(9th Cir.1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see

also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist.

Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court need

only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

recommendation).

The Court will not disturb a Magistrate Judge's Order unless his factual findings are

clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

“[T]he magistrate judge's decision ... is entitled to great deference by the district court.”

United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir.2001). A failure to raise an

objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s findings of fact. Turner v. Duncan,

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

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

Id. (internal citations omitted).

The parties have filed no objections to the R&R (Doc. 11), which relieves the Court

of its obligation to review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

Cir.2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (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.”). This Court

Case 4:12-cv-00072-RCC-DTF Document 12 Filed 08/07/12 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

considers the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned. After a thorough and de novo review

of the record, the Court will ADOPT the R&R of Magistrate Judge Ferraro (Doc. 11).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 11) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact

and conclusions of law by this Court;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

1) is denied without leave to amend, and this action is dismissed with prejudice, and the

Clerk shall enter judgment and close this case.

DATED this 7th day of August, 2012.

Case 4:12-cv-00072-RCC-DTF Document 12 Filed 08/07/12 Page 3 of 3