Summary
holding a prisoner's challenge to changes to the PS 5100.08 scoring system did not affect the execution of his sentence and, therefore, the court lacked habeas jurisdiction under § 2241
Summary of this case from Bride v. McClintockOpinion
No. CV 08-1358 PHX-NVW (LOA).
May 14, 2009
ORDER
Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation ("R R") of Magistrate Judge Anderson (Doc. # 20) regarding petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. # 1). The R R recommends that the Petition be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to the R R. (R R at 12 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). Petitioner filed objections on April 23, 2009. (Doc. # 23.)
The court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., and overrules Petitioner's objections. 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").
Insofar as the Magistrate Judge also ruled on any non-dispositive matters, error may not be assigned to any defect in those rulings to the extent that an aggrieved party did not file a timely objection. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) ("A party may serve and file objections to the order within 10 days after being served with a copy [of the magistrate's order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to."). The absence of a timely objection precludes later assignment of error in this court or in any higher court of the non-dispositive rulings of a magistrate judge. Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 20) is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motions for Discovery (Doc. # 17) and Motion to Amend (docketed as # 19, but appearing at page 20 of Doc. # 18) are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. #1). The Clerk shall terminate this action.