Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00751/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00751-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronnie Harvell
Petitioner
Louis Winn
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 

Ronnie Harvell, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Louis Winn, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-00751-TUC-RCC

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 

1), Defendant’s Return and Answer (Doc. 16), and Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle’s 

Report and Recommendation (R & R) (Doc. 18). The parties did not file objections to 

Judge Pyle’s R & R. The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Pyle’s January 30, 

2015 R & R (Doc. 18) as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court and 

dismisses Plaintiff’s suit. 

I. Background 

 The factual and procedural background in this case is thoroughly detailed in 

Magistrate Judge Pyle’s R & R (Doc. 18). This Court fully incorporates by reference the 

“Background” section of the R & R into this Order. 

II. Discussion

The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court 

may “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 

Case 4:12-cv-00751-RCC Document 20 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a 

de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection 

is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 

992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Therefore to the extent that no objection has been made, 

arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 

(9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); 

see also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States 

Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the 

court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order 

to accept the recommendation). 

 The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge’s order unless his factual findings 

are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate judge’s decision...is entitled to great deference by the 

district court.” U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001). A failure to 

raise an objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s findings of fact. Turner 

v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s 

conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an 

issue on appeal.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 

Here, the parties have not objected to the R & R (Doc. 18), which relieves the 

Court of its obligation to review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003); 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.”). This Court considers 

Case 4:12-cv-00751-RCC Document 20 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 to be thorough and well-reasoned. After a thorough and de novo review of the 

record, the Court will adopt the R & R of Magistrate Judge Pyle (Doc. 18).

 Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Pyle’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 18) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law by this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is dismissed. The Clerk of the 

Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 

 DATED this 24th day of April, 2015. 

Case 4:12-cv-00751-RCC Document 20 Filed 04/24/15 Page 3 of 3