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)

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-