Beck v. Bock et al

Filing 31

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 29 Report and Recommendation. Petitioners Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied without leave to amend, and this action is dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk should enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 10/17/13. (SMBE)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jason Beck, No. CV-11-0090-TUC-RCC Petitioner, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Richard A Bock, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Jason Beck’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 16 Corpus (Doc. 1) and Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau’s Report and 17 Recommendation (R & R) (Doc. 29). The parties did not file objections to Judge 18 Rateau’s R & R. The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Rateau’s August 7, 19 2013 R & R (Doc. 29) as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court and 20 denies Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). 21 I. Background 22 The factual and procedural background in this case is thoroughly detailed in 23 Magistrate Judge Rateau’s R & R (Doc. 29). This Court full incorporates by reference 24 the “Factual and Procedural Background” section of the R&R into this Order. 25 II. Discussion 26 The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may 28 “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 1 return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 2 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 3 Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a 4 de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 5 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection 6 is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 7 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 8 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). Therefore to the extent that no objection has been made, 9 arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th 10 Cir.1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see 11 also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States 12 Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the 13 court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order 14 to accept the recommendation). 15 The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge’s order unless his factual findings 16 are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 17 636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate judge’s decision…is entitled to great deference by the 18 district court.” U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001). A failure to 19 raise an objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s findings of fact. Turner 20 v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s 21 conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an 22 issue on appeal.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 23 The parties have not objected to the R & R (Doc. 29), which relieves the Court of 24 its obligation to review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 25 Cir.2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1) ] does not ... 26 require any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); 27 Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the 28 magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”). This Court considers -2- 1 the R & R to be thorough and well-reasoned. After a thorough and de novo review of the 2 record, the Court will ADOPT the R & R of Magistrate Judge Rateau (Doc. 29). 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and 5 Recommendation (Doc. 29) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and 6 conclusions of law by this Court; 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 8 (Doc. 1) is denied without leave to amend, and this action is dismissed with prejudice, 9 and the Clerk should enter judgment and close this case. 10 DATED this 17th day of October, 2013. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

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?