Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02410/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02410-1/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

Carlos R. Esparza, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 07-2410-PHX-ROS (DKD)

ORDER

On November 29, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc.

1). Respondents moved to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 10). On May 19, 2008, Magistrate

Judge Jennifer C Guerin issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that

the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. (Doc. 17) No objections were filed by

either party. (The parties have ten days from the date of service of a copy of the R&R within

which to file written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F. R. Civ. P. 72,

6(a), 6(e)).

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

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,

Case 2:07-cv-02410-ROS Document 18 Filed 06/12/08 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

- 2 -

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 the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED

and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall be terminated.

DATED this 12th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02410-ROS Document 18 Filed 06/12/08 Page 2 of 2