Cavender v. Ryan et al

Filing 16

ORDER that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 15) is accepted. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment dismissing petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Do c. 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order denying Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court FINDS: Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are Denied. Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 10/31/2011. (KMG)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

George E. Cavender,

10

Petitioner,

11

v.

12
Charles L. Ryan et al.,
13
Respondents.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-08032-PCT-NVW (MHB)
ORDER
and
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
AND IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

15
16

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate

17

Judge Michelle H. Burns (Doc. 15) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

18

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that the Petition be

19

denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had

20

fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 7 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).) No

21

objections were filed.

22

Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the

23

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

24

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003);

25

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any

26

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a

27

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the

28

rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A

1

party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy

2

[of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely

3

objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps

4

v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).

5

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and

6

finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition. See 28

7

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

8

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).

9
10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge (Doc. 15) is accepted.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment dismissing

12

petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1)

13

with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

14

Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order

15

denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court FINDS: Certificate of

16

Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are Denied. Petitioner has

17

not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

18

DATED this 31st day of October, 2011.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-