Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00452/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00452-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ephriam Valdillez,

Plaintiff,

v.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Defendant, _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 09-452 TUC DCB

O R D E R

Standard of Review

The duties of the district court, when reviewing a Report and Recommendation of a

Magistrate Judge, are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). When the parties object to a Report and Recommendation (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 (1985).

When no objections are filed, the district court does not need to 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).

Report and Recommendation

On June 29, 2010, the Honorable Glenda E. Edmonds, United States Magistrate Judge,

filed a R&R in this action. The R&R advises the Court to deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus. The Magistrate Judge found the Petitioner failed to present his claims to the Arizona

Court of Appeals, and “[a]ccordingly, they were not properly exhausted. He may not return to

Case 4:09-cv-00452-DCB Document 19 Filed 08/16/10 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 -

state court to exhaust them and is therefore precluded from raising them in state court. “His

claims are procedurally defaulted.” (R&R at 4.)

The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b), they had 10 days to file written objections to the R&R. See also, Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(b) (party objecting to the recommended disposition has ten (10) days to file

specific, written objections). To date, no objections have been filed.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court makes a de novo determination as to those

portions of the R&R to which there are objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) ("A judge of the

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings and recommendations to which objection is made.") 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 has reviewed the R&R and considers it to be thorough and well-reasoned; it

is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-

618 (9th Cir. 1989). The R&R shall, therefore, be accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Court adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. For the reasons stated in the

R&R, the Court denies the Petition as procedurally defaulted.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 28] is adopted as the

opinion of the Court. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 4:09-cv-00452-DCB Document 19 Filed 08/16/10 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petition [Doc. # 1] is DENIED; the Clerk of the

Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 13th day of August, 2010.

Case 4:09-cv-00452-DCB Document 19 Filed 08/16/10 Page 3 of 3