Carillo-Rodriguez v. Ryan et al

Filing 16

ORDER accepting 14 Magistrate Judge Fine's Report and Recommendation. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. 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. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 2/3/17. (EJA)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Alvaro Carillo-Rodriguez,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-08075-PCT-GMS

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

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

16

United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine’s Report and Recommendation

17

(“R&R”). Docs. 1, 14. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition and

18

dismiss with prejudice. Doc. 14 at 3. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they

19

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

20

could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 3 (citing

21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

22

Cir. 2003)).

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 Petition and dismiss with prejudice.

2

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in

3

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ.

4

P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended

5

disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with

6

instructions.”).

7

IT IS ORDERED:

8

1.

Magistrate Judge Fine’s R&R (Doc. 14) is accepted.

9

2.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and this action is

10
11

dismissed with prejudice.
3.

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

Dated this 3rd day of February, 2017.

16
17
18

Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-