Husband v. Ryan et al

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Magistrate Judge Aspey's Report and Recommendation 41 is accepted; Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is dismissed; the Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 4/16/15. (REW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Sean Patrick Husband,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-13-01320-PHX-DLR

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15
16

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Sean Patrick Husband’s Petition for Writ

17

of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey’s Report and

18

Recommendation (“R&R”). (Docs. 1, 41.) The R&R recommends that the Court deny

19

the Petition. (Doc. 41 at 38.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had

20

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

21

be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. (Id. at 38–39 (citing

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

23

2003)).

24

Respondents did not file an objection. Petitioner filed an objection on February 9,

25

2015, which the Court struck on March 18, 2015, for failure to comply with the Local

26

Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 49.) The Court granted Petitioner leave to file an

27

amended objection by April 2, 2015. (Id.) Petitioner did not file an amended objection,

28

which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1

at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . .

2

require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R.

3

Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate

4

judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless

5

reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R and

6

deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept,

7

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

8

magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify

9

the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the

10

magistrate judge with instructions.”).

11

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Aspey’s R&R (Doc. 41) is accepted.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

13

Corpus (Doc. 1) is dismissed.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

15

Dated this 16th day of April, 2015.

16
17
18
19
20

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-