Vasko v. Hacker-Agnew et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Boyle's R&R (Doc. 13 ) is accepted and adopted as the order of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents' Motion to Stay (Doc. 9 ) and Petitioner&# 039;s Motion to Stay (Doc. 12 ) are GRANTED and that this matter is STAYED pending further order of the Court. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that, no later than July 28, 2017, Petitioner shall file a status report to inform the Court of the status of hi s state court proceedings. In addition, every 90 days after the initial status report, Petitioner shall file a supplemental status report regarding his state court proceedings. Lastly, Petitioner must notify the Court within 30 days after the stat e court review is completed by filing a notice. If relief is not granted by the state court, the stay will be lifted and the Court will set a deadline for Respondents to answer the Petition (Doc. 1 ). (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 6/28/17. (SLQ)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Gary Vasko,

No. CV-17-8001-PCT-DJH
Petitioner,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Carla Hacker-Agnew, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

This matter is before the Court on Respondents’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 9),

16

Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 12), and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

17

issued by United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle (Doc. 13). Petitioner asserts in

18

his motion to stay that he does not oppose Respondents’ motion.

19

Judge Boyle has explained the background and status of this habeas case in the

20

R&R and the Court need not repeat that information here. After full consideration of the

21

matter, Judge Boyle recommends that Respondents’ and Petitioner’s motions to stay be

22

granted.

23

Judge Boyle advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and

24

that the failure to file timely objections "may result in the acceptance of the Report and

25

Recommendation by the District Court without further review." (Doc. 13 at 4) (citing

26

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). Although

27

the parties are in agreement regarding a stay, the Court, in an abundance of caution, has

28

waited for the objection deadline to expire before issuing its ruling. No objection to the

1

R&R has been filed.

2

The Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and

3

recommendations. In light of the parties’ agreement that a stay is warranted here, and

4

Judge Boyle’s well-reasoned recommendation to grant the motions to stay, the Court will

5

accept the R&R and grant the motions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the

6

court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

7

made by the magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same).

8

Accordingly,

9

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Boyle's R&R (Doc. 13) is accepted and

10

adopted as the order of this Court.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 9) and

12

Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 12) are GRANTED and that this matter is STAYED

13

pending further order of the Court.

14

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that, no later than July 28, 2017, Petitioner shall

15

file a status report to inform the Court of the status of his state court proceedings. In

16

addition, every 90 days after the initial status report, Petitioner shall file a

17

supplemental status report regarding his state court proceedings. Lastly, Petitioner must

18

notify the Court within 30 days after the state court review is completed by filing a

19

notice. If relief is not granted by the state court, the stay will be lifted and the Court will

20

set a deadline for Respondents to answer the Petition (Doc. 1).

21

Dated this 28th day of June, 2017.

22
23
24

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

-2-