United States District Court, D. Arizona
C. Collins Chief United States District Judge.
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.
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
Factual and Procedural Background
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.
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. §
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
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).
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).
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.
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.