Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01851/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01851-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Saul Armando Palomino-Cruz
Petitioner
Kathy Tracy
Respondent

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 

Saul Armando Palomino-Cruz,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Kathy Tracy, 

Respondent. 

No. CV-15-01851-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Before the Court are Petitioner Saul Armando Palomino-Cruz’s Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”). (Docs. 1, 16.) The R&R recommends that the Court deny 

the Petition. (Doc. 16 at 5.) 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; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). Petitioner 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 

has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept 

Case 2:15-cv-01851-DLR Document 17 Filed 05/06/16 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 

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 that Magistrate Judge Burns’ R&R, (Doc. 16), is ACCEPTED. 

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 because Petitioner has not made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

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

case. 

 Dated this 6th day of May, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-01851-DLR Document 17 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 2