This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
No. CV-15-00025-TUC-RCC (D. Ariz. Jun. 26, 2017)

No. CV-15-00025-TUC-RCC


Neal James Rolf, Petitioner, v. Charles L Ryan, et al., Respondents.


Pending before the Court is the pro se petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Neal James Rolf, ("Petitioner") and Magistrate Judge Thomas Ferraro's May 24, 2017 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") addressing the same (Doc. 27). Neither Petitioner nor Respondent has filed objections to the R&R.

The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Ferraro's R & R (Doc. 27) as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court.

I. Background

The factual and procedural background of this matter are thoroughly detailed in the R&R. The Court fully incorporates by reference this section of the R&R.

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 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Thereunder 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). "[T]he magistrate judge's entitled to great deference by the district court." U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge's recommendation unless his factual findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

Here, the parties have not objected to the R & R, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review either the factual findings or legal conclusions de novo. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 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.").

Regardless, after a thorough review of the record, this Court considers the R & R to be thorough and well-reasoned. The Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Ferraro's R&R. Accordingly, ... ... ...

IT IS ORDERED: 1. Magistrate Judge Ferraro's R&R (Doc. 27) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court; 2. DISMISSING the Petition (Doc. 1) for the reasons set forth in the R&R. 3. The Clerk of the Court shall close file in this matter.

Dated this 26th day of June, 2017.


Honorable Raner C. Collins

Chief United States District Judge