Summary
In Jones, petitioner admitted either in the written plea agreement, at the change of plea hearing, or at sentencing to three different aggravating factors.
Summary of this case from Van Norman v. SchriroOpinion
No. CV 05-3720-PHX-JAT.
June 27, 2006
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") (Doc. #1). On May 24, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("RR") (Doc. #11) recommending that the Petition be denied.
Neither party has filed objections to the RR. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the RR. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection" (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ( en banc) ("statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise" (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #11) is ACCEPTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1) is DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.