Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03787/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03787-0/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

Juan Daniel Ochoa, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

John Ontiveros, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3787-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Juan Daniel Ochoa’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus and United States Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. ##1, 25. The R&R recommends that Respondents be

required to file an answer to Petitioner’s petition addressing the merits of the petition.

Doc. #25 at 2. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file

objections to the R&R and that the failure to timely file objections to any determination of

the Magistrate Judge would be considered a waiver of the right to review of such

determination. Id. at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)).

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) (“The district judge . . . shall make a de novo

determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific

written objection has been made[.]”). The Court will accept the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. §

Case 2:05-cv-03787-DGC Document 27 Filed 07/27/06 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 -

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”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (same).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan’s R&R (Doc. #25) is accepted.

2. Respondents shall file an answer to Petitioner’s petition addressing the merits

of the petition.

DATED this 27th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03787-DGC Document 27 Filed 07/27/06 Page 2 of 2