Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00909/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00909-1/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 

Louis Ernesto Corrales, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-00909-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 

United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyles’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). 

Docs. 1, 18. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition and dismiss with 

prejudice. Doc. 18 at 12. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen 

days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be 

considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 12 (citing Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(b) and 72; U.S.C. ¶ 636(b)(1); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

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

 The parties did not file objections1

, 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 

 

1

 Petitioner was given an extension to file an objection until August 7, 2015. On August 10, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration asking for additional time and the Court denied the motion. 

Case 2:14-cv-00909-GMS Document 26 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is welltaken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition and dismiss with prejudice. 

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)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended 

disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with 

instructions.”). 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Magistrate Judge Boyles’ R&R (Doc. 18) is accepted. 

 2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and 

dismissed with prejudice. 

 3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 4. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the 

event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 14th day of August, 2015. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-00909-GMS Document 26 Filed 08/14/15 Page 2 of 2