Samaniego-Lugo v. Ryan et al
Filing
18
ORDER adopting 17 Report and Recommendations. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner's 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 Judge Raner C Collins on 12/6/2012.(MFR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Felipe Gabriel Samaniego-Lugo,
10
Petitioner,
11
vs.
12
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 11-0623-TUC-RCC (BPV)
ORDER
15
16
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Felipe Gabriel Samaniego-Lugo’s Petition for
17
Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco’s Report and
18
Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 17). The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge
19
Velasco’s R & R (Doc. 17) 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 state level factual and procedural background in this case is thoroughly detailed
23
in the “Factual and Procedural Background” portion of Magistrate Judge Velasco’s R & R
24
(Doc. 17). This Court fully incorporates by reference the “Factual and Procedural
25
Background” section of the R & R into this Order.
26
27
28
On September 22, 2011, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Respondents filed an Answer on March 29, 2012
1
(Doc. 14). On November 16, 2012 Magistrate Judge Velasco issued a R&R recommending
2
that this Court dismiss the action in its entirety as untimely. (Doc. 17). Petitioner did not file
3
any objections to the R&R.
4
II.
5
6
7
8
9
Discussion
The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U .S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may
“accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return
the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Where the parties object to a R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).
When no objection is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v.
Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). Therefore, to the extent that no objection has been
made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187
(9th Cir.1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see
also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist.
Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court need
only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation).
23
The Court will not disturb a Magistrate Judge’s Order unless his factual findings are
24
clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
25
“[T]he magistrate judge’s decision ... is entitled to great deference by the district court.”
26
United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir.2001). A failure to raise an
27
objection waives all objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact. Turner v. Duncan,
28
158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is
-2-
1
a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.”
2
Id. (internal citations omitted).
3
Petitioner has filed no objections to the R&R (Doc. 17). The parties have not objected
4
to this recommendation, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review. See United
5
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
6
149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1) ] does not ... require any
7
review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3)
8
(“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition
9
that has been properly objected to.”). This Court considers the R&R to be thorough and well-
10
reasoned. After a thorough and de novo review of the record, the Court will ADOPT the
11
R&R of Magistrate Judge Velasco (Doc. 17).
12
Accordingly,
13
14
15
16
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Velasco’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 17) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact
and conclusions of law by this Court;
17
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.
18
1) is denied without leave to amend, and this action is dismissed with prejudice, and the
19
Clerk should enter judgment and close this case.
20
DATED this 6th day of December, 2012.
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?