Harvell v. Winn

Filing 20

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Pyle's 18 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court. Further ordered that this matter is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 4/24/2015.(BAR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Ronnie Harvell,

No. CV-12-00751-TUC-RCC
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Louis Winn,

13

Defendant.

14
15

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

16

1), Defendant’s Return and Answer (Doc. 16), and Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle’s

17

Report and Recommendation (R & R) (Doc. 18). The parties did not file objections to

18

Judge Pyle’s R & R. The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Pyle’s January 30,

19

2015 R & R (Doc. 18) as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court and

20

dismisses Plaintiff’s suit.

21

I.

Background

22

The factual and procedural background in this case is thoroughly detailed in

23

Magistrate Judge Pyle’s R & R (Doc. 18). This Court fully incorporates by reference the

24

“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

28

may “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

10

(9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal);

11

see 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

Here, the parties have not objected to the R & R (Doc. 18), which relieves the

24

Court of its obligation to review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

25

(9th 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 Pyle (Doc. 18).

3

Accordingly,

4

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

5

Recommendation (Doc. 18) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and

6

conclusions of law by this Court.

7
8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is dismissed. The Clerk of the
Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
DATED this 24th day of April, 2015.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-