Greenberg v. Ryan et al

Filing 13

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. That Magistrate Judge Willett's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12 ) is accepted and adopted by the Court; 2. That the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Petitioner's Motion to Stay (Doc. 9 ) an d the motion is denied; 3. That Petitioner shall have until May 8, 2017 to file a Reply in accordance with Judge Willet's November 17, 2016 Order (Doc. 8 ); and 4. That this matter shall remain referred to Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and recommendation. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 4/10/17.(SLQ)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

David Levy Greenberg,

9
10

Petitioner,
vs.

11
12

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.

13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-16-08195-PCT-SPL (ESW)
ORDER

15

Petitioner David Levy Greenberg has filed a Motion to Stay Petition for Writ of

16

Habeas Corpus (Doc. 9), to which Respondent filed a response in opposition to the

17

motion (Doc. 10). No reply was filed, and the Honorable Eileen S. Willett, United States

18

Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 12),

19

recommending that the motion be denied. Judge Willett advised the parties that they had

20

fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections

21

could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. §

22

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

23

Cir. 2003).

24

The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to

25

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

26

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is

27

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must

28

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly

1

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-

2

taken. The Court will adopt the R&R and will deny the motion. See 28 U.S.C. §

3

636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

4

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3)

5

(“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive

6

further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

7

Accordingly,

8

IT IS ORDERED:

9

1. That Magistrate Judge Willett’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) is

10
11
12
13
14

accepted and adopted by the Court;
2. That the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Petitioner’s
Motion to Stay (Doc. 9) and the motion is denied;
3. That Petitioner shall have until May 8, 2017 to file a Reply in accordance
with Judge Willet’s November 17, 2016 Order (Doc. 8); and

15

4. That this matter shall remain referred to Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett

16

pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further

17

proceedings and a report and recommendation.

18

Dated this 10th day of April, 2017.

19
20

Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2