Opinion
No. CV-18-04227-PHX-GMS
10-02-2019
David Anthony Valdez, Petitioner, v. Charles L Ryan, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Doc. 10. The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the Petition with prejudice. Doc. 10 at 13. 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 13 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; 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 and dismiss the Petition with prejudice. 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 accepting United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine's Report & Recommendation (Doc. 10).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing with prejudice the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court's procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 2nd day of October, 2019.
/s/_________
G. Murray Snow
Chief United States District Judge