Sandhoff 094839 v. Shinn ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 David W illiam Sandhoff, ) No. CV-20-08058-PCT-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Petitioner, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) David Shinn, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Respondents. ) ) 14 ) 15 Petitioner David William Sandhoff has filed an Amended Petition for Writ of 16 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 7). The Honorable Michael T. 17 Morrissey, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 18 (Doc. 15), recommending that the Court dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction. Judge 19 Morrissey advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R 20 and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain 21 review of the R&R. (Doc. 15 at 6) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; 22 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 23 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 24 review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 25 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 26 not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 27 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 28 objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will adopt the R&R and dismiss the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating 2| that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 3 | recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge 4) may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED: 7 1. That Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey’s Report and Recommendation 8 | (Doc. 15) is accepted and adopted by the Court; 9 2. That the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 7) is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; 11 3. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied; and 13 4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 14 Dated this 8th day of January, 2021. 15 7 United States District kadge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28