Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02340/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02340-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Conrad Graber
Respondent
Caulin Spinks
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

Caulin Spinks, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Conrad Graber, 

Respondent.

No. CV-14-02340-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner Caulin Spinks’ Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus, (Doc. 1), Respondent Conrad Graber’s Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus and Suggestion of Mootness, (Doc. 8), and United States Magistrate Judge John 

Z. Boyle’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (Doc. 9). The R&R recommends that 

the Court deny and dismiss the Petition because it is moot. (Doc. 9 at 4.) 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. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(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 

Case 2:14-cv-02340-DLR Document 10 Filed 08/20/15 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 

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 Boyle’s R&R (Doc. 9) 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. 

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

 Dated this 19th day of August, 2015. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:14-cv-02340-DLR Document 10 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 2