Opinion
No. CV-15-00579-TUC-RCC
10-03-2017
Andrew Charles Jackson, Petitioner, v. J.T. Shartle, Respondent.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the pro se petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Andrew Charles Jackson ("Petitioner") and Magistrate Judge Ferraro's July 19, 2017 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending dismissal of the petition. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent filed objections to the R&R.
The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Ferraro's R & R as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court.
I. Background
The factual and procedural background of this matter are thoroughly detailed in the R&R. The Court fully incorporates by reference this section of the R&R.
II. Discussion
The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Thereunder the district court may "accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Where the parties object to an R & R, "[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). "[T]he magistrate judge's decision...is entitled to great deference by the district court." U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge's recommendation unless his factual findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Here, the parties have not objected to the R & R, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review either the factual findings or legal conclusions de novo. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 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.").
After a thorough review of the record, this Court considers the R & R to be thorough and well-reasoned. The Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Ferraro's R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, ... ... ...
IT IS ORDERED: 1. Magistrate Judge Ferraro's R&R (Doc. 16) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court; 2. DISMISSING the Petition (Doc. 1).
Dated this 3rd day of October, 2017.
/s/_________
Honorable Raner C. Collins
Chief United States District Judge