Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01162/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01162-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Florentino Thomas Esparza, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1162-PHX-GMS (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas

corpus/civil rights complaint and United States Magistrate Judge Voss’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”). Dkt. ## 4, 24. The R&R recommends that the Court deny

the amended petition because one of Petitioner’s claims is barred by his guilty plea and

the others fail on the merits. Dkt. # 24 at 9. 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 10 (citing

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 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

Case 2:07-cv-01162-GMS Document 26 Filed 09/05/08 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 -

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 agrees with it. The

Court will accept the R&R and deny the Amended 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 Voss’s R&R (Dkt. # 24) is accepted.

2. Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 4) is denied.

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

DATED this 5th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01162-GMS Document 26 Filed 09/05/08 Page 2 of 2