Henderson #280969 v. Ryan et al

Filing 32

ORDER Magistrate Judge Metcalf's R&R (Doc. 31 ) is accepted. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Gov erning 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. SeeSlack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/13/2015. (KMG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Tommie Lee Henderson, Petitioner, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-15-00592-PHX-GMS 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 James F. Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation 17 (“R&R”). Docs. 1, 31. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss the Petition 18 without prejudice. Doc. 31 at 18. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 19 fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could 20 be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 18 (citing Fed. R. 21 Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 22 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 23 review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 24 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 25 not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 26 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 27 objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well- 28 taken. The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. See 1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in 2 whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. 3 P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended 4 disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with 5 instructions.”). 6 IT IS ORDERED: 7 1. Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s R&R (Doc. 31) is accepted. 8 2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is dismissed 9 without prejudice. 10 3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 11 4. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the 12 event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 13 because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See 14 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 15 Dated this 13th day of November, 2015. 16 17 18 Honorable G. Murray Snow United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 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?