Greer v. Graber

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 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 shall enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Raner C Collins on 08/07/12. (LMF)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Prentice Greer,
Petitioner,

10
11

vs.

12
Conrad M. Graber, Warden,
13
Respondent.
14

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

No. 12-CV-72-TUC-RCC
ORDER

15
16

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Prentice Greer’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

17

Corpus (Doc. 1) and Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro’s Report and Recommendation

18

(R&R) (Doc. 11). The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s July 13, 2012

19

R&R (Doc. 11) as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court and denies

20

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1).

21

This Court fully incorporates by reference the Background section of the R & R into

22

this Order. Petitioner filed his Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 2241 (Doc. 1) on January 30, 2012. Respondent timely responded and Magistrate Judge

24

Ferraro issued an R&R recommending that this dismiss the petition. No objections have

25

been filed.

26

The duties of the district court in connection with a R&R are set forth in Rule 72 of

27

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 return

1

the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. §

2

636(b)(1).

3

Where the parties object to a R&R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de

4

novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.

5

§ 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).

6

When no objection is filed, the district court need not review the R&R de novo. Wang v.

7

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

8

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). Therefore to the extent that no objection has been

9

made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187

10

(9th 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 Dist.

12

Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court need

13

only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

14

recommendation).

15

The Court will not disturb a Magistrate Judge's Order unless his factual findings are

16

clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

17

“[T]he magistrate judge's decision ... is entitled to great deference by the district court.”

18

United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir.2001). A failure to raise an

19

objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s findings of fact. Turner v. Duncan,

20

158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is

21

a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.”

22

Id. (internal citations omitted).

23

The parties have filed no objections to the R&R (Doc. 11), which relieves the Court

24

of 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985)

26

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

27

subject of an objection.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo

28

any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”). This Court
-2-

1

considers the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned. After a thorough and de novo review

2

of the record, the Court will ADOPT the R&R of Magistrate Judge Ferraro (Doc. 11).

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s Report and

5

Recommendation (Doc. 11) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact

6

and conclusions of law by this Court;

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

8

1) is denied without leave to amend, and this action is dismissed with prejudice, and the

9

Clerk shall enter judgment and close this case.

10

DATED this 7th day of August, 2012.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-