Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02817/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02817-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Respondent
Meg Savage
Respondent
James Leon Walker
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Leon Walker, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Meg Savage, Warden, Eyman Complex;

and Attorney General of the State of

Arizona,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2817-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

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

corpus and United States Magistrate Judge David Duncan’s report and recommendation

(“R&R”). Docs. ##1, 17. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the petition as

untimely. Doc. #17 at 1-4. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days

to file objections to the R&R and that the failure to timely file objections to any

determination of the Magistrate Judge would be considered a waiver of the right to review

of such determination. Id. at 5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (“The district judge . . . shall make a de novo

determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific

written objection has been made[.]”); Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (same); see also

Case 2:04-cv-02817-DGC Document 18 Filed 03/15/06 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 -

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 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.”).

The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. 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) (same).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge David Duncan’s R&R (Doc. #17) is accepted.

2. Petitioner James Walker’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. #1) is

denied.

3. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 14th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02817-DGC Document 18 Filed 03/15/06 Page 2 of 2