Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00017/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00017-1/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

Frank Scott, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-00017-PHX-EHC

ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle has issued a Report and

Recommendation (Dkt. 51) recommending that Petitioner’s writ be denied. Petitioner has

filed Objections (Dkt. 58). 

The Court reviews de novo the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation to which Petitioner has filed an objection. 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, ...,

to which objection is made.”); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court is not required to review any issue that is not the

subject of an objection. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D. Ariz. 2003),

citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

Case 2:04-cv-00017-EHC Document 59 Filed 03/03/08 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

1

Petitioner filed a Motion for Lodging Formal Legal Objections to the Respondent’s

Filing Improper Status Report (Dkt. 47), a Motion to Inform the Court that Respondents’

Agents Delayed the Petitioner’s Receipt of Respondents Nov. 1st Response, until Nov. 10th

(Dkt. 49), and a Motion to Request A Status Update (Dkt. 50). To the extent that Dockets

47 and 49 request consideration of the arguments advanced therein, they are granted, but are

otherwise denied to the extent they request further relief. Because the Magistrate Judge

issued a Report and Recommendation, Docket 50 is now moot.

- 2 -

The Court has reviewed de novo the record in this matter and agrees with the

Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge regarding disposition. The Court

has also considered the three pending motions filed prior to the issuance of the Report and

Recommendation, and finds that they do not impact upon the outcome of this case.1

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED adopting in full the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Dkt. 51).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Dockets 47 and 49 to the extent that these

motions request consideration of the arguments advanced therein, and denying these

motions to the extent they request further relief. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Petitioner’s Motion for Status

Update (Dkt. 50).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED this 29th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:04-cv-00017-EHC Document 59 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 2