Crooks v. Arpaio

Full title: Alexander Crooks, Petitioner, v. Joseph Arpaio, Respondent(s)

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Dec 29, 2005

No. CV05-64-PHX-DGC (LOA) (D. Ariz. Dec. 29, 2005)

Opinion

No. CV05-64-PHX-DGC (LOA).

December 29, 2005

ORDER

DAVID CAMPBELL, District Judge

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Alexander Crook's petition for writ of habeas corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson's Report and Recommendation (" RR"). Docs. ##1, 10. The RR recommends that the Court deny the petition because Petitioner failed to comply with the Court's September 23, 2005 order to immediately notify the Court of any change in his address. Doc. #10. On September 29, 2005 and October 3, 2005, the Court received ret urned mail addressed to Plaintiff. Docs. ##5,6. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court's Show Cause Order issued on September 29, 2005, explaining why his action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's orders. Doc. #10. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to the RR 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 3 (citing [ 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 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 RR. 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) ("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[.]"). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the RR and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the RR 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).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Anderson's RR (Doc. #10) is accepted.

2. Petitioner Crooks's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. #1) is denied.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.