Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-02390/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-02390-2/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

Stephen Wilson, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Bartos, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2390-PCT-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Stephen Wilson’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. ##1, 25. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the

petition because Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted. Doc. #25 at 10-11. The

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to the R&R and

that the failure to timely file objections to any determination of the Magistrate Judge would

be considered a waiver of the right to review of such determination. Id. at 11 (citing 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003)).

The parties have not filed objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not

the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (“The district judge . . . shall make a de

Case 3:05-cv-02390-DGC Document 27 Filed 08/16/06 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 -

novo determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific

written objection has been made[.]”). The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b) (same).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson’s R&R (Doc. #25) is accepted.

2. Petitioner Stephen Wilson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. #1) is

denied.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 16th day of August, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-02390-DGC Document 27 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2