Jackson v. Shartle
Filing
17
ORDER that Magistrate Judge Ferraro's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court; DISMISSING the Petition (Doc. 1 ). Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 10/3/2017. (SIB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9
10
Andrew Charles Jackson,
Petitioner,
11
12
ORDER
v.
13
No. CV-15-00579-TUC-RCC
J.T. Shartle,
14
Respondent.
15
16
Pending before the Court is the pro se petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed
17
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Andrew Charles Jackson (“Petitioner”) and Magistrate
18
Judge Ferraro’s July 19, 2017 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending
19
dismissal of the petition. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent filed objections to the R&R.
The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s R & R as the findings of
20
21
fact and conclusions of law of this Court.
22
I.
Background
The factual and procedural background of this matter are thoroughly detailed in
23
24
the R&R. The Court fully incorporates by reference this section of the R&R.
25
II.
Discussion
26
The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72
27
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Thereunder the
28
district court may “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
1
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
2
72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
3
Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a
4
de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28
5
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection
6
is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d
7
992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22
8
(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
9
deference by the district court.” U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir.
10
2001). The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge’s recommendation unless his factual
11
findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. §
12
636(b)(1)(A).
“[T]he magistrate judge’s decision…is entitled to great
13
Here, the parties have not objected to the R & R, which relieves the Court of its
14
obligation to review either the factual findings or legal conclusions de novo. See United
15
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
16
140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1) ] does not ... require any review at all ... of any
17
issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge
18
must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been
19
properly objected to.”).
20
After a thorough review of the record, this Court considers the R & R to be
21
thorough and well-reasoned. The Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s R&R in its
22
entirety. Accordingly,
23
…
24
…
25
…
26
27
28
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s R&R (Doc. 16) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED
as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court;
-2-
1
2
2.
DISMISSING the Petition (Doc. 1).
Dated this 3rd day of October, 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-
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?