Walford v. Ryan et al

Filing 14

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 . ORDER that Respondents' Motion to Dismiss 11 is granted. ORDER that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 4 is dismissed without prejudice. ORDER that a Certificate of Appealability is denied (see attached pdf for complete information). Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 6/10/11. (TLJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Gary Walford,
Petitioner,

10
11

vs.

12
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-11-00395-PHX-NVW
ORDER

15
16

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate

17

Judge Duncan (Doc.13) regarding Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 4). The R&R recommends that the Petition be denied

19

and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had

20

fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (Doc. 13 at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).

21

No objections were filed.

22

Because the parties did not file objections, the Court need not review any of the

23

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

24

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003);

25

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any

26

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a

27

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the

28

rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A

1

party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy

2

[of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely

3

objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps

4

v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).

5

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the Court has reviewed the R&R and

6

finds that it is well taken. The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition. See 28

7

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

8

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).

9
10
11
12
13
14

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Duncan (Doc. 13) is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss For Failure to
Satisfy Exhaustion Requirement (Doc. 11) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Doc. 4) is dismissed without prejudice.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is denied because

16

dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not

17

find the procedural ruling debatable.

18

DATED this 10th day of June, 2011.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-