Rolf v. Ryan et al

Filing 28

ORDER ACCEPTING and ADOPTING 27 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court. IT IS ORDERED DISMISSING the 1 Petition for the reasons set forth in the R&R. The Clerk shall close file in this matter. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 6/26/17.(BAC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Neal James Rolf,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-15-00025-TUC-RCC

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Pending before the Court is the pro se petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1)

16

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Neal James Rolf, (“Petitioner”) and Magistrate

17

Judge Thomas Ferraro’s May 24, 2017 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) addressing

18

the same (Doc. 27). Neither Petitioner nor Respondent has filed objections to the R&R.
The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s R & R (Doc. 27) as the

19
20

findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court.

21

I.

Background
The factual and procedural background of this matter are thoroughly detailed in

22
23

the R&R. The Court fully incorporates by reference this section of the R&R.

24

II.

Discussion

25

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

26

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Thereunder the

27

district court may “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further

28

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

1

72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2

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

3

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

4

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection

5

is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d

6

992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22

7

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

8

deference by the district court.” U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir.

9

2001). The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge’s recommendation unless his factual

10

findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. §

11

636(b)(1)(A).

“[T]he magistrate judge’s decision…is entitled to great

12

Here, the parties have not objected to the R & R, which relieves the Court of its

13

obligation to review either the factual findings or legal conclusions de novo. See United

14

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.

15

140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1) ] does not ... require any review at all ... of any

16

issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge

17

must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been

18

properly objected to.”).

19

Regardless, after a thorough review of the record, this Court considers the R & R

20

to be thorough and well-reasoned. The Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s

21

R&R. Accordingly,

22

…

23

…

24

…

25
26

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

27
28

Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s R&R (Doc. 27) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as
the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court;

2.

DISMISSING the Petition (Doc. 1) for the reasons set forth in the R&R.

-2-

1
2

3.

The Clerk of the Court shall close file in this matter.
Dated this 26th day of June, 2017.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-