Barquera 310548 v. Rogers

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Mark Anthony Barquera, No. CV-19-05451-PHX-DLR (MTM) 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Samuel Rogers, et al., 13 Defendants.

16 Before the Court are Petitioner’s motion to stay and Magistrate Judge Michael Morrissey’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Docs. 14, 17.) The R&R recommends that the Court deny the motion. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Id.; Thomas v. Arn, 474 23 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.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken.

28 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 17) is ACCEPTED and || Petitioner’s motion to stay (Doc. 14) is DENIED. Respondents’ motion for an extension 2|| of time to respond to Petitioner’s motion to stay (Doc. 16) is DENIED as moot.

3 Dated this 25th day of June, 2020. : Las Ue 7 _- {UO 8 States Dictric Judge _2-