Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00152/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00152-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jose Miguel Haro-Arce, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-152-TUC-RCC (LAB)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Jose Haro-Arce’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (Doc. 1) and Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman’s Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) (Doc. 19). The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Bowman’s R&R (Doc.

19) as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court and denies Petitioner’s

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1).

I. Background

This Court fully incorporates by reference the “Summary of the Case” section of the

R&R into this order. In the R&R, Judge Bowman recommends that this Court deny

Petitioner’s petition. Petitioner failed to file objections within the allotted time.

II. Discussion

The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U .S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may

Case 4:12-cv-00152-RCC Document 20 Filed 05/06/13 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 -

“accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return

the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1).

Where the parties object to a 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).

When no objection is filed, the district court need not 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). Therefore 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 will not disturb a Magistrate Judge's Order unless his factual findings are

clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

“[T]he magistrate judge's decision ... is entitled to great deference by the district court.”

United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir.2001). A failure to raise an

objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s findings of fact. Turner v. Duncan,

158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is

a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.”

Id. (internal citations omitted).

Petitioner has filed no objections to the R&R, which relieves the Court of its

obligation to review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003);

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) (“[Section

636(b)(1) ] does not ... require any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an

Case 4:12-cv-00152-RCC Document 20 Filed 05/06/13 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 -

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.”). This Court considers

the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned. Additionally, after conducting an independent

and de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Bowman’s recommendation.

The Court will therefore ADOPT the R&R of Magistrate Judge Bowman (Doc. 19).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 19) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact

and conclusions of law by this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

1) is denied without leave to amend, and this action is dismissed with prejudice, and the

Clerk shall enter judgment and close this case.

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2013.

Case 4:12-cv-00152-RCC Document 20 Filed 05/06/13 Page 3 of 3