Corrales #089694 v. Ryan et al

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. It is ordered Magistrate Judge Boyles' R&R 18 is accepted. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this acti on and enter judgment 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 Court's procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/14/2015. (ACL)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Louis Ernesto Corrales,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-00909-PHX-GMS

Charles Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15
16

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

17

United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyles’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).

18

Docs. 1, 18. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition and dismiss with

19

prejudice. Doc. 18 at 12. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen

20

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

21

considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 12 (citing Fed. R.

22

Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(b) and 72; U.S.C. ¶ 636(b)(1); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

23

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

24

The parties did not file objections1, 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
1

28

Petitioner was given an extension to file an objection until August 7, 2015. On
August 10, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration asking for additional time and the
Court denied the motion.

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

taken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition and dismiss with prejudice.

5

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in

6

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ.

7

P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended

8

disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with

9

instructions.”).

10

IT IS ORDERED:

11

1.

Magistrate Judge Boyles’ R&R (Doc. 18) is accepted.

12

2.

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

13
14
15
16

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

17

event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability

18

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See

19

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

20

Dated this 14th day of August, 2015.

21
22
23

Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

-2-