Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02340/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02340-0/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

Robert D. Quick, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora Schriro, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2340-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On August 5, 2005, Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

#1). On March 12, 2007, Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin issued a report and Recommendation

("R&R") recommending that the petition be dismissed with prejudice (Doc. #17). On March

27, 2007, the Court granted Petitioner an extension of time until April 20, 2007 to file

Objections to the R&R. The Court granted Petitioner a thirty day extension, despite the fact

that Petitioner requested ninety days. On April 30, 2007, Petitioner again requested the

ninety day extension. The Court will grant the ninety day extension, which makes the

deadline for filing Objections to the R&R June 20, 2007. As of today, Petitioner has not filed

any Objections.

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

Case 2:05-cv-02340-ROS Document 21 Filed 06/27/07 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 -

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

(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). No objection having been

made, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Extension (Doc. #20) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #17) is

ADOPTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED this 27th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02340-ROS Document 21 Filed 06/27/07 Page 2 of 2