Robbins v. Ryan et al
Filing
23
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 22 . Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is dismissed with prejudice as to Ground Two (Insufficiency of Evidence) and denied as to the remainder of the Petition. The Clerk of Co urt shall terminate this action. 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). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/5/13. (LAD)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Robin Lynn Robbins,
Petitioner,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-12-08056-PCT-GMS
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.
13
14
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and
15
United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation
16
(“R&R”). Docs. 1, 22. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss with prejudice
17
Ground Two (Insufficiency of the Evidence) and denying the remainder of the Petition.
18
Doc. 22 at 37. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to
19
file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a
20
waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 37-38 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b),
21
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 dismiss with prejudice Ground Two
1
(Insufficiency of Evidence) and deny the remainder of the Petition. See 28 U.S.C.
2
§ 36(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 Metcalf’s R&R (Doc. 22) is accepted.
8
2.
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is dismissed with
9
10
prejudice as to Ground Two (Insufficiency of Evidence) and denied as to the
remainder of the Petition.
11
3.
The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.
12
4.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the
13
event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability
14
because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See
15
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
16
Dated this 5th day of March, 2013.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
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?