Sandhoff 094839 v. Shinn

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David W illiam Sandhoff, ) No. CV-20-08058-PCT-SPL ) )

Petitioner, ) ORDER vs. ) ) )

David Shinn, et al., ) )

Respondents. ) ) )

Petitioner David William Sandhoff has filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 7). The Honorable Michael T. Morrissey, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 15), recommending that the Court dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Morrissey advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) 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. (Doc. 15 at 6) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; 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.”). 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 that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 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, IT IS ORDERED:

1. That Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is accepted and adopted by the Court;

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;

3. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied; and

4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

Dated this 8th day of January, 2021.

United States District kadge