Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00988/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00988-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Berton Siegel, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

James McFadden; et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-988-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #14) issued by the

Magistrate Judge recommending that the Petition in this case be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction because the Petitioner was not in custody at the time the Petition was filed. No

objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.

This 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

(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) (emphasis added); see also 28

Case 2:05-cv-00988-JAT Document 15 Filed 11/10/05 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 -

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

[report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).

No objections having been filed,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #14) is accepted and

adopted, the Petition in this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the Clerk of the

Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 10th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00988-JAT Document 15 Filed 11/10/05 Page 2 of 2