Casteel v. Ryan et al

Filing 55

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 53 . Petitioner's Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 13 ) is denied. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cas es, 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. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 7/19/13. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Everett Gregory Casteel,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-12-00182-PHX-GMS

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of

16

Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade’s Report and

17

Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 13, 53. The R&R recommends that the Court deny

18

the Petition. Doc. 53 at 15. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had

19

fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could

20

be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 15 (citing 28

21

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

22

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

23

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

24

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

25

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is

26

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (“The district judge must determine

27

de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected

28

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

1

Court will accept the R&R and deny 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, (“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 Bade’s R&R (Doc. 53) is accepted.

8

2.

Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 13)

9

is denied.

10

3.

The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

11

4.

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

12

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

13

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court=s procedural ruling debatable. See

14

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

15

Dated this 19th day of July, 2013.

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

-2-