Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02808/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02808-2/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jose J. Rodriguez, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Deputy Warden Tucker, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 04-CV-2808-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 1),

Respondents' Amended Answer (doc. 19), the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation (doc. 26), Respondents' Amended Objections to the Report and

Recommendation (doc. 28), Petitioner's Motion to Strike Respondents' Objections (doc. 29),

and Petitioner's Response to Respondents' Objections (doc. 30). Respondents did not

respond to petitioner's motion to strike, and the time for filing a response has expired.

The Report and Recommendation was filed and delivered to defendants by electronic

mail on January 27, 2006. "Within 10 days after being served [with a copy of the

recommended disposition], a party may file objections as provided by local court rule."

Rules Governing § 2254 Cases 8(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pursuant to Rule 6(a),

Fed. R. Civ. P., any objection was due by February 10, 2006. Respondents filed their

objections on February 27, 2006 and their amended objections on March 1, 2006, both of

Case 2:04-cv-02808-FJM Document 31 Filed 04/24/06 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 -

which violate our timing rules. Respondents failed to seek an extension of time in which to

file an objection, and they set forth no reason for the delay.

Petitioner moves to strike the objections on timeliness grounds. Respondents failed

to respond to petitioner's motion to strike. Failure to respond to a motion "may be deemed

a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion

summarily." LRCiv 7.2(i). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING petitioner's

motion to strike the respondents' untimely objections (doc. 29).

Although we have reservations about the Magistrate Judge's recommended

disposition, no timely objections have been filed. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases, we accept the Magistrate Judge's recommendation (doc. 26).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DISMISSING the petition for a writ of habeas corpus

without prejudice.

DATED this 21st day of April, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02808-FJM Document 31 Filed 04/24/06 Page 2 of 2