Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01275/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01275-1/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

Emmet Darnell Wall, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Attorney General Of the State of Arizona,

et al., 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 13-1275-PHX-JAT

ORDER

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

(“Petition”) (Doc. 5). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

(Doc. 17) recommending that the Petition be denied. 

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts

the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not

required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”

(emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis

in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17)

is ACCEPTED; accordingly,

Case 2:13-cv-01275-JAT Document 18 Filed 11/13/14 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 -

• Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5) is denied

and dismissed with prejudice, 

• that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the

event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a certificate of

appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and

• the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice.

DATED this 13th day of November, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-01275-JAT Document 18 Filed 11/13/14 Page 2 of 2