Foose v. Arizona, State of et al
Filing
19
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 18 . Petitioners Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 10 is denied and dismissed with prejudice. Petitioners Motion for Ruling 17 is moot. The Clerk shall terminate this action and enter jud gment accordingly. 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 Courts procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 5/26/2015. (ACL)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Edward Micheal Foose,
Petitioner,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-14-00787-PHX-GMS
Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et
al.,
13
14
Respondents.
15
16
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of
17
Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’s Report and
18
Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 10, 18. The R&R recommends that the Court deny
19
the Petition and dismiss with prejudice. Doc. 18 at 16. The Magistrate Judge advised the
20
parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file
21
timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R.
22
Id. at 16 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
23
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).
24
The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to
25
review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
26
(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is
27
not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must
28
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly
1
objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-
2
taken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Second Amended Petition and
3
dismiss with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may
4
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
5
the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or
6
modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
7
magistrate judge with instructions.”).
8
IT IS ORDERED:
9
1.
Magistrate Judge Burns’s R&R (Doc. 18) is accepted.
10
2.
Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 10)
11
is denied and dismissed with prejudice.
12
3.
Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling (Doc. 17) is moot.
13
4.
The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment
14
15
accordingly.
5.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the
16
event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability
17
because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See
18
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
19
Dated this 26th day of May, 2015.
20
21
22
Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge
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?