Foose v. Arizona, State of et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Edward Micheal Foose,
Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 10, 18. The R&R recommends that the Court deny
the Petition and dismiss with prejudice. Doc. 18 at 16. The Magistrate Judge advised the
parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file
timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R.
Id. at 16 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).
The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to
review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is
not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly
objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-
taken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Second Amended Petition and
dismiss with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or
modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.”).
IT IS ORDERED:
Magistrate Judge Burns’s R&R (Doc. 18) is accepted.
Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 10)
is denied and dismissed with prejudice.
Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling (Doc. 17) is moot.
The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment
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 Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Dated this 26th day of May, 2015.
Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge
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?