From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gilliland v. Shinn

United States District Court, District of Arizona
Aug 1, 2023
No. CV-22-01194-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz. Aug. 1, 2023)

Opinion

CV-22-01194-PHX-SPL

08-01-2023

Joshua Cheyenne Gilliland, Petitioner, v. David Shinn, et al., Respondents.


ORDER

Honorable Steven P. Logan United States District Judge

Petitioner Joshua Cheyenne Gilliland has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Honorable James F. Metcalf, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 17), recommending that the Court dismiss the Petition without prejudice. Judge Metcalf advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) 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. (Doc. 17 at 4) (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 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 adopt the R&R and dismiss 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:

1. That Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is accepted and adopted by the Court;

2. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice;

3. That a certificate of appealability is denied; and

4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Gilliland v. Shinn

United States District Court, District of Arizona
Aug 1, 2023
No. CV-22-01194-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz. Aug. 1, 2023)
Case details for

Gilliland v. Shinn

Case Details

Full title:Joshua Cheyenne Gilliland, Petitioner, v. David Shinn, et al., Respondents.

Court:United States District Court, District of Arizona

Date published: Aug 1, 2023

Citations

No. CV-22-01194-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz. Aug. 1, 2023)