Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02111/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02111-1/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 

John H. King, II, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et. al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-02111-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

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

United States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). 

Docs. 1, 25. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. Doc. 25 at 20. 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 21 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; 

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 welltaken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

Case 2:11-cv-02111-GMS Document 26 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

(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 Bade’s R&R (Doc. 25) is accepted. 

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

 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 4th day of September, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-02111-GMS Document 26 Filed 09/04/12 Page 2 of 2