Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01320/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01320-2/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 

Sean Patrick Husband, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-13-01320-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner Sean Patrick Husband’s Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”). (Docs. 1, 41.) The R&R recommends that the Court deny 

the Petition. (Doc. 41 at 38.) 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 38–39 (citing 

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

2003)). 

 Respondents did not file an objection. Petitioner filed an objection on February 9, 

2015, which the Court struck on March 18, 2015, for failure to comply with the Local 

Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 49.) The Court granted Petitioner leave to file an 

amended objection by April 2, 2015. (Id.) Petitioner did not file an amended objection, 

and the Court adopted the R&R on April 16, 2015. (Doc. 50.) 

Case 2:13-cv-01320-DLR Document 55 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 About two weeks later, Petitioner filed a Motion to Reconsider and/or Vacate 

Judgment and Alternatively for an Extension of Time, claiming that he never received the 

Court’s order striking in his objection and that he was unaware that no objection was on 

the record. (Doc. 52.) After a hearing on May 13, 2015, the Court granted Petitioner’s 

motion and gave Petitioner leave to file an objection by May 20, 2015. (Doc. 54.) 

 Petitioner has not filed an objection, 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 welltaken. 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)(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 that Magistrate Judge Aspey’s R&R (Doc. 41) is accepted and 

adopted by the Court. 

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

Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied. 

Case 2:13-cv-01320-DLR Document 55 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 28th day of May, 2015. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:13-cv-01320-DLR Document 55 Filed 05/28/15 Page 3 of 3