From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Salazar v. Ryan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jun 6, 2016
No. CV-15-02083-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz. Jun. 6, 2016)

Opinion

No. CV-15-02083-PHX-DLR

06-06-2016

Marco Antonio Salazar, Petitioner, v. Charles L Ryan, et al., Respondents.


ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner Marco A. Salazar's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle's Report and Recommendation (R&R). Docs. 1, 16. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. Doc. 16 at 5. 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 6 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). Petitioner 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 has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition. 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 that Magistrate Judge Boyle's R&R, Doc. 16, is ACCEPTED. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable, and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this case.

Dated this 6th day of June, 2016.

/s/_________

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Salazar v. Ryan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jun 6, 2016
No. CV-15-02083-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz. Jun. 6, 2016)
Case details for

Salazar v. Ryan

Case Details

Full title:Marco Antonio Salazar, Petitioner, v. Charles L Ryan, et al., Respondents.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Jun 6, 2016

Citations

No. CV-15-02083-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz. Jun. 6, 2016)