White v. Ryan et al

Filing 28

ORDER ACCEPTING 22 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aspey. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall TERMINATE this action. 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 3/27/12. (LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Boy White,
Petitioner,

10
11

vs.

12

Director Charles Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.

13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-2126-PHX-GMS
ORDER

14
15

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

16

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

17

22. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. Doc. 22 at 23. The Magistrate

18

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

19

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

20

the R&R1. Id. at 23 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

21

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27
28

1

The Court further extended the deadline to file an objection and/or response to the
R&R until March 19, 2012 (Doc. 27).

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

magistrate judge with instructions.”).

7

IT IS ORDERED:

8

1.

Magistrate Judge Aspey’s R&R (Doc.22) is ACCEPTED.

9

2.

Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH

10

PREJUDICE.

11

3.

The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this action.

12

4.

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

DATED this 27th day of March, 2012.

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