Bunn v. Ryan et al

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge Anderson's R&R 11 is accepted; Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is denied; The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action; Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rule s 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 Courts procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 5/20/2014. (ALS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Otis Eugene Bunn,

No. CV-13-01424-PHX-GMS
Petitioner,

10

ORDER

11

v.

12

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 Lawrence Anderson’s Report and Recommendation

17

(“R&R”). Docs. 1, 11. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. Doc. 11

18

at 10. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file

19

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

20

waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 10 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (b), and 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

22

Cir. 2003)).

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

IT IS ORDERED:

7

1.

Magistrate Judge Anderson’s R&R (Doc. 11) is accepted.

8

2.

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

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, 2014.

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

-2-