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

Tiaron Germaine Ross,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-16-00030-TUC-RCC

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) prepared by 

Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich. Doc. 23. In his R & R, Magistrate Judge Markovich 

recommends that this Court deny Petitioner Tiaron Ross’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus. Doc. 1. For the following reasons, this Court shall accept and adopt the R & R as 

the findings of fact and conclusions of law for this Court.

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 

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 
- 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

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

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 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.” United States 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, 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 

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

record, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Markovich’s R & R.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...
- 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

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Petitioner Tiaron Ross’s petition for habeas corpus 

is denied. Doc. 1. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Markovich’s Report 

and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law by this Court. Doc. 23. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court may close the case.

Dated this 30th day of July, 2018.