Strouse v. Santana, et. al

Filing 48

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is Ordered Magistrate Judge Markovich's R&R (Doc. 47 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court. It is further Ordered the case caption in this matter i s AMENDED as shown above, terminating "Joe Santana" and "John Doe" as respondents and reflecting that J.T. Shartle is the only Respondent. It is further Ordered DISMISSING the Petition (Doc. 34 ) for lack of jurisdiction. It is further Ordered DENYING AS MOOT Petitioner's Petition for Leave to Order Bureau of Prisons to File and Process Administrative Remedies (Doc. 39 ). It is further Ordered DENYING AS MOOT Petitioner's Petition to Expedite Summary Judgement (Doc. 44 ). The Clerk of the Court shall close the file in this matter. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 6/26/2017. (MFR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

James Brandon Strouse,

10

Petitioner,

11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-00237-TUC-RCC

J.T. Shartle,

13

Respondent.

14
15

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

16

34) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by James Brandon Strouse, (“Petitioner”),

17

Petitioner’s Petition for Leave to Order Bureau of Prisons to File and Process

18

Administrative Remedies (Doc. 39), Petitioner’s Petition to Expedite Summary

19

Judgement (Doc. 44) and Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich’s May 19, 2017 Report and

20

Recommendation (“R&R”) addressing all of the above (Doc. 47). Neither Petitioner nor

21

Respondent (correctly noted in the above listed caption as J.T. Shartle) filed objections to

22

the R&R.
The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Markovich’s R & R (Doc. 47) as

23
24

the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court.

25

…

26

I.

27
28

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

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

1

II.

Discussion

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

636(b)(1)(A).

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

properly objected to.”).

24

After a thorough review of the record, this Court considers the R & R to be

25

thorough and well-reasoned. The Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Markovich’s R&R.

26

Accordingly,

27
28

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Magistrate Judge Markovich’s R&R (Doc. 47) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED

-2-

1
2

as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court;
2.

The case caption in this matter is AMENDED as shown above, terminating “Joe

3

Santana” and “John Doe” as respondents and reflecting that J.T. Shartle is the only

4

Respondent;

5

3.

DISMISSING the Petition (Doc. 34) for lack of jurisdiction;

6

4.

DENYING AS MOOT Petitioner’s Petition for Leave to Order Bureau of Prisons

7
8

to File and Process Administrative Remedies (Doc. 39); and
5.

9
10
11
12

DENYING AS MOOT Petitioner’s Petition to Expedite Summary Judgement
(Doc. 44).

6.

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

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

-3-