GUM v. RYAN

Full title: Edward Harry Gum, Petitioner, v. Charles L. Ryan, et al., Respondents

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Nov 2, 2009

No. CV 08-8116-PCT-MHM (D. Ariz. Nov. 2, 2009)

Opinion

No. CV 08-8116-PCT-MHM.

November 2, 2009

ORDER

MARY MURGUIA, District Judge

Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on September 24, 2008. On December 11, 2008, Respondents filed their response to Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On September 18, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

In his Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 10 days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. The time to file such objections has long since expired and no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9^th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

After a complete and independent review of the issues presented, the Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court [doc. 19].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed with prejudice [doc. 1].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.