Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02121/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02121-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

Esfandiar Nikbakhsh-Tali, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Thomas Long, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-02121 PHX NVW

ORDER

Before the court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Title

28, U.S.C. § 2241 (doc. # 1). On June 4, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge Hector C.

Estrada issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (doc. # 24) in accordance with 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The R & R recommended that the petition be denied. The Magistrate

Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to the R & R. R & R at 9

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). No objections were filed.

Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003);

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 absence of a

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the

rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)

Case 2:06-cv-02121-NVW Document 25 Filed 06/28/07 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 -

(“Within 10 days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s order, a party may

serve and file objections to the order; a party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in

the magistrate judge’s order to which objection was not timely made.”); Simpson v. Lear

Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-

21 (9th Cir. 2002).

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R & R and

finds that it is well taken. 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”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED accepting the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Estrada (doc. # 24).

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

pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C. § 2241 (doc. # 1) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment denying

the Petition. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

DATED this 27th day of June 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02121-NVW Document 25 Filed 06/28/07 Page 2 of 2