Organ v. Arpaio et al

Filing 16

ORDER that Magistrate Judge Anderson's 15 Report and Recommendation is accepted. Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 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. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/01/11. (ESL)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Daniel Roy Organ,
Petitioner,

10
11

v.

12
Margaret Callaway, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14

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

No. CV-11-158-PHX-GMS (LOA)
ORDER

15
16

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and

17

United States Magistrate Judge Anderson’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Doc.

18

1, 15. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the petition. Doc. 15 at 7. The Magistrate

19

Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that

20

failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of

21

the R&R. Id. at 8 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(e); United States

22

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

23

The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review

24

the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)

25

(“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the

26

subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de

27

novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The

28

Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will

1

accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district

2

court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

3

made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject,

4

or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the

5

magistrate judge with instructions.”).

6

IT IS ORDERED:

7

1.

Magistrate Judge Anderson’s R&R (Doc. 15) is accepted.

8

2.

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied.

9

3.

The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

10

4.

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event

11

Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because

12

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v.

13

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

14

DATED this 1st day of November, 2011.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-