Fisher v. Ryan et al
Filing
12
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 : Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is denied. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the ev ent 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 5/30/13. (LAD)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
No. CV-12-02307-PHX-GMS
Kathy Ann Fisher,
Petitioner,
10
11
v.
12
ORDER
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
15
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and
16
United States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).
17
Docs. 1, 11. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. Doc. 11 at 9. 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 9 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72;
21
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 (“The district judge must determine
26
de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected
27
to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The
28
Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that
1
the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
2
recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, (“The district judge may
3
accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return
4
the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).
5
IT IS ORDERED:
6
1.
Magistrate Judge Bade’s R&R (Doc. 11) is accepted.
7
2.
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied.
8
3.
The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.
9
4.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the
10
event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability
11
because reasonable jurists would not find the Court=s procedural ruling debatable. See
12
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
13
Dated this 30th day of May, 2013.
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?