Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02615/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02615-1/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

Richard W. Putnam, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora B. Schriro, Director of A.D.O.C; and

Attorney General of the State of Arizona,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2615-PHX-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Richard Putnam’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus and motion to rule on prior motion. Docs. ##1, 19. Also pending is United States

Magistrate Judge Lawrence Anderson’s report and recommendation (“R&R”). Doc. #20.

The R&R recommends that the Court deny the petition because Petitioner’s claims

are procedurally barred and Petitioner has not demonstrated cause and prejudice or shown

that a miscarriage of justice would result from upholding the procedural bar. Id. at 14-15.

The R&R further recommends that the Court deny as moot the motion to rule on prior

motion. Id. 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 15 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (“The district judge . . . shall make a de novo

Case 2:04-cv-02615-DGC Document 21 Filed 03/15/06 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 -

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

written objection has been made[.]”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (same)).

The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review

the R&R. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); 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.”). The Court

has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the

R&R and deny the petition and motion to rule on prior motion. 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 Anderson’s R&R (Doc. #20) is accepted.

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

denied.

3. Petitioner’s motion to rule on prior motion (Doc. #19) is denied as moot.

4. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 14th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02615-DGC Document 21 Filed 03/15/06 Page 2 of 2