Meeker v. Stewart

Filing 14

***ORDER #14 VACATED PURSUANT TO ORDER 17 FILED 12/14/06***ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13; petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied and this case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 12/1/2006. (LAD, ) Modified on 12/14/2006 (LAD, ).

Meeker v. Stewart

Doc. 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On January 25, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus . (Doc. 1) On November 17, 2006, Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds issued a report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the petition be denied. (Doc. 13) No objections were filed by either party. The 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 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1126 (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."'). District courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject
Case 2:05-cv-01654-ROS Document 14 Filed 12/05/2006 Page 1 of 2
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Don L. Meeker, Petitioner, vs. Terry L. Stewart, Respondent.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 05-1654-PHX-ROS ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). No objection having been made, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is ADOPTED, Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED this 1st day of December, 2006.

-2Case 2:05-cv-01654-ROS Document 14 Filed 12/05/2006 Page 2 of 2