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)

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-