Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00415/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00415-1/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

Christian Louis Wrathall, 

Petitioner, 

v.

E.W. Morris, Warden; et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-415-PHX-GMS (GEE)

ORDER

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

United States Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmond’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).

Dkt. ## 1 & 14. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the petition because Petitioner’s

consecutive sentences do not violate due process. Dkt. # 14 at 1. The Magistrate Judge

advised the parties that they had ten 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 8 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 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-00415-GMS Document 15 Filed 11/13/08 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 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.”).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmond’s R&R (Dkt. #14) is ACCEPTED.

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

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

DATED this 12th day of November, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00415-GMS Document 15 Filed 11/13/08 Page 2 of 2