Crago v. Ryan et al

Filing 49

ORDER ADOPTING 47 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and Petitioner's 25 Petition is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 4/26/16.(BAC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Earl Felton Crago, No. CV-14-02007-TUC-FRZ Petitioner, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Charles Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge 16 Leslie Bowman entered on April 5, 2016. See Doc. 47. In the Report and 17 Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Bowman recommends that this Court deny Petitioner 18 Earl Felton Crago’s amended petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 2254 (the “Petition”) [Doc. 25]. In the Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge 20 advised the parties that they may serve and file written objections within 14 days of being 21 served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation and that if objections were not 22 filed, any objection would be deemed waived. See Doc. 47 at p. 16. No objections have 23 been filed. See Dkt. 24 Standard of Review 25 This Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 26 recommendations made by the magistrate. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “Within fourteen days 27 after being served with a copy [of a report and recommendation], any party may serve 28 and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided 1 by rule of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those 2 portions of the report [and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 3 636(b)(1). Section 636(b)(1), Title 28 U.S.C., has been interpreted as not “requir[ing] 4 some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed.” Schmidt v. 5 Johnstone, 263 F.Supp. 1219, 1220 (D. Ariz. 2003), quoting Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 6 140, 149-50, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Instead, district courts are not 7 required to conduct “any review at all … of any issue that is not the subject of an 8 objection.” Id., quoting Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149, 106 S.Ct. 466. 9 Analysis 10 Neither party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. 11 Accordingly, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Petition 12 be denied. 13 Conclusion 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 47] is 15 ACCEPTED and Petitioner’s Petition [Doc. 25] is DENIED and this action is 16 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 17 18 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Dated this 26th day of April, 2016. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?