Free Order on Report and Recommendations - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9 Anthony M. Sanchez, No. CV 03-2206-PHX-ROS
10 Plaintiff, i ORDER
11 vs. {
12 )
Dora B. Schriro, et al.,
13 Defendant. 3
14
15
16
17 Pending before the Court are Petitioner Anthony M. Sanchez's ("Petitioner") Petition
18 for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") (Doc. #1) and Motion For Usage of An Electric
19 Manual Typewriter (Doc. #24) ("Motion To Use Typewriter"). On May 17, 2005, Magistrate
20 Judge Virginia A. Mathis issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that
21 the Court deny the Petition and Motion To Use Typewriter (Doc. #26). In the R&R, Judge
22 Mathis advised that "[tjhe parties shall have ten days from the date of service of this [R&R]
23 within which to file specific written objections with the Court," and that the "[fjailure to
24 timely file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be
25 considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the factual issues and will
26 constitute a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or
27 judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's [R&R]." R&R p. 44. No objections
28 were filed by either party.
ase 2:03-cv-02206-ROS Document 29 Filed O1/31/2006 Page 1 of 3

1 The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
2 recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). It is "clear that the
3 district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo J
4 objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Rejgra-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
5 (9"‘ Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,
6 1 126 (D.Ariz. 2003) ("Following Re;ma—Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of
7 factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, 'but not otherwise."‘). District
8 courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject
9 of an objection," Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). No objection having been
10 made, the Court will adopt the R&R in full.
11 Also pending is Petitioner's Motion For Preparation Of Documents For 9"‘ Circuit
12 Court of Appeals ("Motion To Appeal") (Doc. #27). ln the R&R, Judge Mathis also advised
13 the parties that "any notice of appeal filed pursuant to Rule 4(a)(l), Federal Rules of
14 Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s order and
15 judgment." R&R p. 43. Petitioner's Motion To Appeal was filed prior to the Court's Order
16 adopting the R&R. Thus, it will be denied as untimely. As explained previously, because
17 Petitioner failed to timely filed objections to the R&R, he has waived his right to appeal
18 Judge Mathis’s factual findings adopted in this Order, assuming he renews his motion at a
19 later date. However, Petitioner's right to appeal conclusions of law is preserved.
20
2 1 Accordingly,
22 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doe. #26) is ADOPTED,
23 the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1) is DENIED, and the Motion To Use
24 Typewriter (Doc. #24) is DENIED.
25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion To Appeal (Doc. #27) is DENIED.
26
27 DATED this day of January, 2006.
28
- 2 -
ase 2:03-cv-02206-ROS Document 29 Filed O1/31/2006 Page 2 of 3

1
3 Ros y1iO.` 19.- r
4 United States District Judge
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 -
se 2:03-cv-02206-ROS Document 29 Filed O1/31/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02206-ROS

Document 29

Filed 01/31/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02206-ROS

Document 29

Filed 01/31/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02206-ROS

Document 29

Filed 01/31/2006

Page 3 of 3