Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01927/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01927-1/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

Henry Daniel GUERRA,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Dora SCHRIRO, et al.,

Respondents. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-1927-PHX-SMM (MEA)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Henry Guerra's Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus. [Doc. No. 1] On May 8, 2006, Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey filed a Report and

Recommendation, advising this Court that Petitioner's Petition should be denied and dismissed

with prejudice. [Doc. No. 18] Respondent, through counsel, filed Objections on May 17, 2006.

[Doc. No. 19] After considering Judge Aspey's Report and Recommendation and the arguments

raised in Petitioner's Objections thereto, the Court now issues the following ruling. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v.

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court must review the legal analysis in the

Report and Recommendation de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court must review

the factual analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo for those facts to which

Objections are filed and for clear error for those facts to which no Objections are filed. See id.;

Case 2:05-cv-01927-SMM Document 20 Filed 06/22/06 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 -

see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to file objections relieves

the district court of conducting de novo review of the magistrate’s factual findings).

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, and the objections having been made by Petitioner thereto, the Court hereby

incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Mark E. Aspey. [Doc. No. 18]

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

[Doc. No. 1] is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this Order

to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey.

DATED this 20th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01927-SMM Document 20 Filed 06/22/06 Page 2 of 2