Orduno v. Ryan

Full title: Adan Orduno, Petitioner, v. Charles L Ryan, et al., Respondents.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Oct 16, 2018

No. CV-17-02911-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Oct. 16, 2018)

Opinion

No. CV-17-02911-PHX-JAT

10-16-2018

Adan Orduno, Petitioner, v. Charles L Ryan, et al., Respondents.

James A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge

ORDER

Pending before this Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") from the Magistrate Judge recommending that the Petition in this case be denied. (Doc. 11).

This Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is "clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9^th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) ("Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, 'but not otherwise.'"); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court "must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge's] recommendations to which the parties object."). District courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.").

Although the Court previously granted Petitioner an extension of time to file objections, neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Because neither party has filed objections to the R&R,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is accepted and adopted; the Petition is denied and dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, a certificate of appealability is denied.

Dated this 16th day of October, 2018.

/s/_________

James A. Teilborg

Senior United States District Judge