Albeno #229079 v. Ryan et al

Filing 14

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 : Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. Pursuant to Rule 1 1(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). (See document for further details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/12/14. (LAD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Nelson Alejandro Flores Albeno,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-13-01259-PHX-GMS

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14

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

15

United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).

16

Docs. 1, 13. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. Doc. 13 at 17. The

17

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

18

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

19

obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 18 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-

20

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

IT IS ORDERED:

5

1.

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

6

2.

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

7
8
9
10

dismissed with prejudice.
3.

The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment

accordingly.
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 12th day of March, 2014.

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

-2-