Fox v. Ryan et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 23 : Magistrate Judge Voss's R&R (Doc. 23) is accepted. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this acti on. 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. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). (See document for details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/31/11. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
Ronald Fox,
9
Petitioner,
10
v.
11
Charles Ryan, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-10-8186-PCT-GMS (ECV)
ORDER

14
15

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

16

United States Magistrate Judge Voss’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Doc. 1, 23.

17

The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. Doc. 23 at 6. The Magistrate Judge

18

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

19

to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the

20

R&R. Id. at 6 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72; United States

21

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 review

23

the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)

24

(“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the

25

subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de

26

novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The

27

Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will

28

accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district

1

court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

2

made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject,

3

or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the

4

magistrate judge with instructions.”).

5

IT IS ORDERED:

6

1.

Magistrate Judge Voss’s R&R (Doc. 23) is accepted.

7

2.

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and

8

dismissed with prejudice.

9

3.

The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

10

4.

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

DATED this 31st day of August, 2011.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-