Langloss #103239 v. Unknown Party

Filing 27

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 25 Magistrate Judge Macdonald's Report and Recommendation. Petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. Doc. 1 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petiti oner's Motion for Status Report and Stay is denied in part and granted in part. Doc. 24 . Petitioner's motion for stay is denied while his motion for status update is granted. Signed by Judge Raner C Collins on 9/24/2018. (See attached Order for details) (KEP)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Vernon Michael Langloss, No. CV-15-00204-TUC-RCC Petitioner, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Charles L Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Vernon Langloss’s Petition for Writ of Corpus (Doc. 1), and Magistrate Judge Macdonald’s Report and 16 Habeas 17 Recommendation (“R & R”) (Doc. 25). For the following reasons, the Court shall adopt 18 the R & R. 19 Discussion 20 The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may 22 “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 23 return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 24 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 25 Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a 26 de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 27 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection 28 is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 1 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 2 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge’s order unless his 3 factual findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 4 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate judge’s decision…is entitled to great deference 5 by the district court.” United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 6 2001). A failure to raise an objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s 7 findings of fact. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object 8 to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety 9 of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 10 Here, the parties have not objected to the R & R, which relieves the Court of its 11 obligation to review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 12 2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1) ] does not ... 13 require any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); 14 Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the 15 magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”). This Court considers 16 the R & R to be thorough and well-reasoned. After a thorough and de novo review of the 17 record, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge MacDonald’s R & R. 18 … 19 … 20 … 21 … 22 … 23 … 24 … 25 … 26 … 27 … 28 … -2- 1 … 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge MacDonald’s Report and 4 Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and 5 conclusions of law by this Court. Doc. 25. 6 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. Doc. 1. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Status Report and 9 Stay is denied in part and granted in part. Doc. 24. Petitioner’s motion for stay is denied 10 while his motion for status update is granted. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close the case. 12 Dated this 24th day of September, 2018. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

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?