Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01517/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01517-0/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

Thomas Raymond Sullivan, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-1517-PHX-DGC (GEE)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Thomas Sullivan’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and United States Magistrate Judge Glenda

Edmond’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. ##1, 28. Petitioner alleges that

he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his state court trial in violation of the

Sixth and Fourt eent h Amendments to the United States Constitution. Doc. #1 at 4-5, 13-14,

21-32. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny the petition because

Petitioner has failed to show any prejudice and the state court’s adjudication of

Petitioner’s claims was not unreasonable or contrary to clearly established federal law.

Doc. #28 at 10-20 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d)). 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 Magist rat e Judge would be considered a waiver of the right to review of such

determination. Id. at 20 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

Case 2:04-cv-01517-DGC-GEE Document 29 Filed 11/01/05 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 -

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

The parties did not file 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

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

novo determination . . . of any portion of the magist rat e judge’s disposition to which

specific written objection has been made[.]”). 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.

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 Glenda Edmond’s R&R (Doc. #28) is accepted.

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

denied.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 31st day of October, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-01517-DGC-GEE Document 29 Filed 11/01/05 Page 2 of 2