Cato #199166 v. Ryan et al
ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26 ) is accepted and adopted. As a result, the motion to stay (Doc. 25 ) is denied. The Petition is dismissed, without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 2/07/2017. (REK)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Johnny David Cato,
Charles L Ryan, et al.,
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation recommending that: 1)
the Court deny Petitioner’s request to stay this case while he exhausts further claims in
state court, and 2) the Court grant Petitioner’s request to voluntarily dismiss his mixed
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and
This Court previously warned Petitioner that voluntarily dismissing his petition
might cause his claims in this petition to be time barred if he tries to bring them again
later. (Doc. 20). Petitioner nonetheless has decided this is the course he is choosing to
Given that there are no objections to the Report and Recommendation,1
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that
the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de
novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263
F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes
that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26) is accepted and
adopted. As a result, the motion to stay (Doc. 25) is denied. The Petition is dismissed,
without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied.
Dated this 7th day of February, 2017.
otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d
1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the
[Magistrate Judge=s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are
not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an
objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28
U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).
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?