Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02300/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02300-1/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

 

 Petitioner James Albert Ashpole has filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5). The Honorable Bridget S. 

Bade, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

(Doc. 18), recommending that this matter be stayed and held in abeyance. Judge Bade 

advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) 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. (Doc. 18) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States 

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 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 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 wellJames Albert Ashpole, 

 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Justin Beresky, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-15-02300-PHX-SPL (BSB)

ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-02300-SPL Document 19 Filed 04/29/16 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 

taken. The Court will adopt the R&R and will stay this action. 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.”). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade’s Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 18) is accepted and adopted by the Court; 

2. That this proceeding is stayed and the Amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5) is held in abeyance pending the 

Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision in case number 1 CA-CR 16-0103-PRPC; and 

3. That no later than thirty (30) days after the date of service of this Order, 

Respondents and Petitioner must inform the Court of the status of his proceedings in state 

court; and 

4. That every ninety (90) days after the filing of the initial status report, 

Petitioner and Respondents must file a new report regarding the status of the state court 

proceedings. Petitioner’s failure to comply with these instructions may result in the Court 

vacating the stay and dismissing this matter for failure to comply with Court orders. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

Dated this 29th day of April, 2016. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02300-SPL Document 19 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 2