Seagle v. Ryan et al
Filing
14
ORDER that the 13 Report and Recommendations is adopted and the 1 Petition shall be dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Respondents. It is further ordered a Certificate of Appealability is denied. Dismissal of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 06/01/11. (ESL)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
David Lin Seagle,
Petitioner,
10
11
vs.
12
Charles Ryan, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-10-1342-PHX-ROS
ORDER
15
16
17
Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and
18
Recommendation. (Doc. 13) Magistrate Judge Burns recommends the petition for writ of
19
habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner did not file any objections.
20
A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
21
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Where any party has
22
filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations, the district
23
court’s review of the part objected to is to be de novo. Id. If, however, no objections are
24
filed, the district court need not conduct such a review. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp.
25
2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo
26
review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, but not otherwise.”)
27
(internal quotations and citations omitted). Petitioner did not file any objections and the
28
R&R will be adopted in full.
1
Accordingly,
2
IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the Petition
3
(Doc. 1) shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall enter judgment in
4
favor of Respondents.
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. Dismissal
6
of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the
7
ruling debatable.
8
DATED this 1st day of June, 2011.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
]]>
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?
