Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01236/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01236-1/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 

Jonathan Andrew Arias, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-01236-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Motion for Authorization to Represent 

Petitioner in State Postconviction Proceedings, Motion to Stay Federal Proceeding and 

United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’s Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”). Docs. 20, 23. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Motions. 

Doc. 23 at 6. 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 6-7 (citing 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 Court will accept the R&R and deny the Motions. See 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 2:15-cv-01236-GMS Document 35 Filed 05/31/16 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 

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 Burns’s R&R (Doc. 23) is accepted. 

 2. Petitioner’s Motion for Authorization to Represent Petitioner in State 

Postconviction Proceedings and Motion to Stay Federal Proceedings (Doc. 20) are 

denied. 

 Dated this 31st day of May, 2016. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01236-GMS Document 35 Filed 05/31/16 Page 2 of 2