De Los Rios # 220280 v. Ryan et al

Filing 15

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 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 5/20/13. (LAD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Paul Bryan De Los Rios,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-12-00839-PHX-GMS

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

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

16

United States Magistrate Judge David Duncan’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).

17

Docs. 1, 13. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. Doc. 13 at 7. The

18

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

19

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

20

obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 7 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6a, 6(b),

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must

26

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

27

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

28

taken. The Court will accept the R&R and denies the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

1

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

2

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The

3

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further

4

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

5

IT IS ORDERED:

6

1.

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

7

2.

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

8

dismissed with prejudice.

9

3.

The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

10

4.

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

Dated this 20th day of May, 2013.

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

-2-