Mided v. Jensen et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Magistrate Judge Metcalf's 20 Report and Recommendation is accepted; Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1: Ground Four is dismissed with prejudice and the remainder of the Petition is denied; the Clerk shall terminate this action; 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 4/11/14. (REW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Matt J. Mided,
Edwin Jensen, et al.,
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and
United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”). Docs. 1, 20. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss with prejudice
Ground Four and deny the remainder of the Petition. Doc. 20 at 27. The Magistrate
Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and
that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain
review of the R&R. Id. at 28 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,
328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).
The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to
review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is
not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly
objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-
taken. The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss with prejudice Ground Four and deny
the remainder of the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court
“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject,
or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to
the magistrate judge with instructions.”).
IT IS ORDERED:
Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s R&R (Doc. 20) is accepted.
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), Ground Four is
dismissed with prejudice and the remainder of the Petition is denied.
The Clerk of Court 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).
Dated this 11th day of April, 2014.
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?