Gray #282846 v. Ryan et al

Filing 29

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: Magistrate Judge Willett's R&R (Doc. 22 ) is accepted. The Petitioner's Motion for Release from Custody (Doc. 14 ) is denied. The Petitioner's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 21 ) is denied. 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 Courts procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). (See document for further details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/15/17. (SLQ)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Richard Louis Gray,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-00963-PHX-GMS (ESW)

Charles Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Release from Custody, (Doc.

16

14), Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 21), and United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S.

17

Willett’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (Doc. 22). The R&R recommends that

18

the Court deny both Motions, (Doc. 22 at 5). The Magistrate Judge advised the parties

19

that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely

20

objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at

21

22 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

22

Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007)).

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 accept the R&R and deny the Petitioner’s Motions. See 28 U.S.C.

2

§ 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

3

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

4

(“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive

5

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

6

IT IS ORDERED:

7

1.

Magistrate Judge Willett’s R&R (Doc. 22) is accepted.

8

2.

The Petitioner’s Motion for Release from Custody (Doc. 14) is denied.

9

3.

The Petitioner’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 21) is denied.

10

4.

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the

11

event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability

12

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See

13

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

14

Dated this 15th day of September, 2017.

15
16
17

Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-