Robinson v. Ryan et al

Filing 14

ORDER Magistrate Judge Burns' R&R (Doc. 13 ) is accepted. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is denied and dismissed. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. A Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/11/2012. (KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

James E. Robinson,
Petitioner,

10
11

v.

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

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

No. CV-11-1383-PHX-GMS (MHB)
ORDER

15
16

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

17

United States Magistrate Judge Burns’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 1, 13.

18

The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the petition. Doc. 13 at p. 8. The

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

United States 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 and dismiss the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that

2

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

3

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

4

accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return

5

the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

6

IT IS ORDERED:

7

1.

Magistrate Judge Burns’ R&R (Doc. 13) is accepted.

8

2.

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

9

dismissed.

10

3.

The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

11

4.

A Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

12

is denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and

13

jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

14

DATED this 11th day of June, 2012.

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