Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Allen v. JT Shartle

United States District Court, D. Arizona

April 12, 2017

Julio Allen, Petitioner,
v.
JT Shartle, Respondent.

          ORDER

          Raner C. Collins Chief United States District Judge.

         Pending before the Court is Julio Allen's pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 (“the Petition”). Doc. 1. Respondent has filed his Return and Answer to the Petition (Doc. 15) and Petitioner Responded thereto (Doc. 16. Also before the Court is Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald's February 21, 2017 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Doc. 22. No objections to the R&R were filed[1].

         The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Macdonald's R & R (Doc. 22) as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court and will deny the Petition (Doc. 1) as moot.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         The factual and procedural background in this case is thoroughly detailed in the R & R. See Doc. 22 at 2. This Court fully incorporates by reference the “Background” section of the R & R into this Order.

         II. Discussion

         The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court may “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Therefore to the extent that no objection has been made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation).

         The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge's order unless his factual findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate judge's decision…is entitled to great deference by the district court.” U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001). A failure to raise an objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge's findings of fact. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge's conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

         Here, the parties have not objected to the R & R (Doc. 22), which relieves the Court of its obligation to review. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1) ] does not ... require any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”). This Court considers the R & R to be thorough and well-reasoned. After a thorough and de novo review of the record, the Court will adopt the R & R of Magistrate Judge Macdonald (Doc. 22).

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Macdonald's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1) is DENIED as MOOT.

---------


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.