Abdin v. Ryan et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Magistrate Judge Metcalf's 33 Report and Recommendation is accepted. Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5 ) is denied. The Clerk shall terminate this action and ente r 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. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 4/28/17. (DXD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Samer W. Abdin,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-02003-PHX-GMS

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas

16

Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report and

17

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Docs. 5, 33). The R&R recommends that the Court deny the

18

Petition (Doc. 33 at 34). The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen

19

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

20

considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 34 (citing Fed.

21

R. 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 deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

1

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

2

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The

3

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further

4

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

6

1.

Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s R&R (Doc. 33) is ACCEPTED.

7

2.

Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5) is

8
9
10
11

DENIED.
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

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 28th day of April, 2017.

16
17
18

Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-