Villanueva v. Shartle

Filing 17

ORDER ACCEPTING and ADOPTING Magistrate Judge Velasco's 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court. Petitioners 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 3/21/17. (BAC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Robert Elie Villanueva, 10 Petitioner, 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-15-00494-TUC-RCC JT Shartle, 13 Respondent. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Robert Villanueva’s Petition for Writ of 16 Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), and Magistrate Judge Velasco’s Report and Recommendation 17 (“R & R”) (Doc. 15). For the following reasons, the Court shall adopt the R & R. 18 Discussion 19 The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may 21 “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 22 return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 23 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 24 Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a 25 de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 26 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection 27 is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 28 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 1 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge’s order unless his 2 factual findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 3 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate judge’s decision…is entitled to great deference 4 by the district court.” United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 5 2001). A failure to raise an objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s 6 findings of fact. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object 7 to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety 8 of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 9 Here, the parties have not objected to the R & R, which relieves the Court of its 10 obligation to review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 11 2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1) ] does not ... 12 require any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); 13 Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the 14 magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”). This Court considers 15 the R & R to be thorough and well-reasoned. After a thorough and de novo review of the 16 record, the Court accepts adopts Magistrate Judge D. Velasco’s R & R. 17 … 18 … 19 … 20 … 21 … 22 … 23 … 24 … 25 … 26 … 27 … 28 … -2- 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Velasco’s Report and 3 Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and 4 conclusions of law by this Court. Doc. 15 5 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Robert Villanueva’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. Doc. 1. 7 8 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Dated this 21st day of March, 2017. 10 11 12 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?