Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01665/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01665-1/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 

Ellis Eugene Pittman, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-01665-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 13, 18. The R&R recommends that the Court grant 

Ground One, deny Ground Two and dismiss with prejudice. Doc. 18 at 9. The 

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the 

R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to 

obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 16 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(b); United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

not the subject of an 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 

Case 2:14-cv-01665-GMS Document 19 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is welltaken. The Court will accept the R&R and grants Ground One, denies Ground Two and 

dismisses the Second Amended Petition with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The 

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Magistrate Judge Boyle’s R&R (Doc. 18) is accepted. 

 2. Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 13) 

is granted as to Ground One and denied as to Ground Two and dismissed with 

prejudice. 

 3. The State of Arizona is to transfer Petitioner to federal custody for 

Petitioner to begin serving his five-year sentence in CR-12-20-DLB-2 (Eastern District of 

Kentucky). 

 4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for six months, absent 

further request of the parties. 

 5. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 6. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the 

event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 25th day of January, 2016. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01665-GMS Document 19 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 2