Opinion
No. CV-17-00963-PHX-GMS (ESW)
04-08-2019
Richard Louis Gray, Petitioner, v. Charles Ryan, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Petitioner's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending the Ninth Circuit Court Decision in May v. Ryan (Doc. 59) and United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), (Doc. 63). The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Motion. Doc. 63 at 2. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen 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. Id. at 2 (citing 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 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 will accept the R&R and deny the Motion. 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.").
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Magistrate Judge Willett's R&R (Doc. 63) is ACCEPTED.
2. Petitioner's Motion to Stay (Doc. 59) is DENIED.
Dated this 8th day of April, 2019.
/s/_________
G. Murray Snow
Chief United States District Judge