Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01153/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01153-1/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

Ronald Eugene Cousin, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Warden Ramos, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1153-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On June 14, 2006, Petitioner filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). Respondents

moved to dismiss the Petition as a successive petition (Doc. 12). On September 11, 2007,

Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R")

recommending that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss be granted, that the Petition be

dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner filing a proper application for consideration of a

successive petition in the Ninth Circuit, and that Petitioner’s Motion to Stay be denied (Doc.

14). Movant filed “objections” to the R&R. (Doc. 45) For the following reasons, the Court

will adopt the R&R. 

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

Case 2:07-cv-01153-ROS Document 16 Filed 10/31/07 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 -

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1126 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”). District

courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject

of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

The Magistrate Judge determined that the Petition was “successive” and that the court

lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the successive petition and the motion to stay.

Petitioner filed “objections” to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. The “objections,”

however, presented no objections questioning the Magistrate Judge's legal or factual basis

for concluding he was not entitled to relief. Indeed, Petitioner concedes that he is required

to seek permission from the Ninth Circuit to file his petition (see Doc. 15). Without valid

objections, this Court need not conduct de novo review of the R&R. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is ACCEPTED and

that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without

prejudice to Petitioner filing a proper application for consideration of a second or successive

petition in the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 13) is

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

DATED this 31st day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01153-ROS Document 16 Filed 10/31/07 Page 2 of 2