Kensey v. Ryan

Filing 16

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. That Magistrate Judge Duncan's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15 ) is accepted and adopted by the Court; 2. That the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended (Doc. 6 ) is denied and dismissed with prejudice; 3. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied; and 4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 5/28/15. (LAD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

Kenneth Ramon Kensey,

9
10

Petitioner,
vs.

11
12
13
14

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-14-02051-PHX-SPL
ORDER

15

Petitioner Kenneth Ramon Kensey has filed an Amended Petition for Writ of

16

Habeas Corpus pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 6). The Honorable David

17

K. Duncan, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation

18

(“R&R”) (Doc. 15), recommending that the Court deny the Petition. Judge Duncan

19

advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that

20

failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review

21

of the R&R. (Doc. 15) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States

22

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 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 adopt 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.”). Accordingly,

6

IT IS ORDERED:

7

1.

8
9
10
11
12

That Magistrate Judge Duncan’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is

accepted and adopted by the Court;
2.

That the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, as amended (Doc. 6) is denied and dismissed with prejudice;
3.

That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal are denied; and

13

4.

That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

14

Dated this 28th day of May, 2015.

15
16

Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2