Estrada #197490 v. Ryan et al

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 23 . Petitioner Gabriel Octavio Estrada's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 6/21/17. (KAH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Gabriel Octavio Estrada,

10

Petitioner,

11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-15-00044-TUC-RCC

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

On May 25, 2017, Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro filed a Report and

16

Recommendation (“R & R”) stating that Petitioner Gabriel Octavio Estrada’s Petition for

17

Writ of Habeas Corpus should be dismissed. Doc. 23. On September 28, 2016, Petitioner

18

was released from custody. Petitioner has not received a copy of the R & R because he

19

has not informed the Court of his new address as required under Rule 83.3(d) of the

20

Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

21

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

22

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may

23

“accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or

24

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28

25

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge’s order unless his

4

factual findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28

5

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate judge’s decision…is entitled to great deference

6

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

7

2001). A failure to raise an objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s

8

findings of fact. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object

9

to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety

10

of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

11

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

12

obligation to review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

13

2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1) ] does not ...

14

require any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”);

15

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the

16

magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”). This Court considers

17

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

18

record, the Court accepts adopts Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro’s R & R.

19

…

20

…

21

…

22

…

23

…

24

…

25

…

26

…

27

…

28

…

-2-

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro’s Report

3

and Recommendation is accepted and adopted. Doc. 23.

4
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Gabriel Octavio Estrada’s Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. Doc. 1

6
7
8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close this
case.
Dated this 21st day of June, 2017.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-