Bailey v. Schriro

Filing 17

ORDER the 16 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is Dismissed. The Clerk shall close this case. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/5/08. (KMG)

Download PDF
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 August 4, 2008, Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed. (Doc. 16.) Petitioner failed to file timely objections. 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 vs. D. Schriro, Respondent. Darrell Ray Bailey, Petitioner, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-06-0019-PHX-ROS ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 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 the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. DATED this 5th day of September, 2008. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?