Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01180/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01180-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Steven Michael Cabrera, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Deputy Warden Bock, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1180-PHX-GMS (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus/civil rights

complaint and United States Magistrate Judge Duncan’s Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”). Dkt. ## 1, 16. The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the petition

with prejudice . Dkt. # 16 at 11. 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 11 (citing 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(b); 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

Case 2:08-cv-01180-GMS Document 17 Filed 05/03/10 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 -

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

accept the R&R and deny and dismiss the Petition 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 Duncan’s R&R (Dkt. # 16) is ACCEPTED.

2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. # 1) is DENIED and

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

3. The Clerk of the Court shall TERMINATE this action.

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01180-GMS Document 17 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 2