Mondragon v. Smith
Filing
17
ORDER that the 15 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. No ruling on a certificate of appealability is required. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/29/2013. (LFIG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Waldy J. Mondragon,
10
Petitioner,
11
vs.
12
Dennis R. Smith,
Respondent.
13
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-12-00817-PHX-ROS
ORDER
15
On June 25, 2013, Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf issued a Report and
16
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied.
17
(Doc. 15). No objections were filed.1
18
A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
19
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Where any party has
20
filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations, the district
21
court’s review of the part objected to is to be de novo. Id. If, however, no objections are
22
filed, the district court need not conduct such a review. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp.
23
2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). No objections having been filed, the R&R will be adopted
24
in full.
25
Accordingly,
26
27
28
1
It is unlikely Petitioner received a copy of the R&R because the copy mailed to him
was returned as undeliverable. (Doc. 16). Petitioner’s failure to keep his address up to date
does not merit delaying resolution of the pending R&R.
1
IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED. The
2
petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. No ruling on a certificate of appealability
3
is required. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
4
DATED this 29th day of July, 2013.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?