Smith v. Ryan, CV-18-00547-TUC-RCC. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20191223766
Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER RANER C. COLLINS , Senior District Judge . On November 25, 2019, Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in which he recommended the Court dismiss Petitioner Alexander E. Smith's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 ("Petition"). (Doc. 23.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to file any objections. No objections have been filed. If neither party objects to a magistrate judg
Summary: ORDER RANER C. COLLINS , Senior District Judge . On November 25, 2019, Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in which he recommended the Court dismiss Petitioner Alexander E. Smith's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 ("Petition"). (Doc. 23.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to file any objections. No objections have been filed. If neither party objects to a magistrate judge..
More
ORDER
RANER C. COLLINS, Senior District Judge.
On November 25, 2019, Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in which he recommended the Court dismiss Petitioner Alexander E. Smith's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition"). (Doc. 23.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to file any objections. No objections have been filed.
If neither party objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the District Court is not required to review the magistrate judge's decision under any specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the statute for review of a magistrate judge's recommendation "does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.
The Court has reviewed the Petition (Doc. 1), the Respondent's Answer (Doc. 16), and Judge Ferraro's R&R (Doc. 23). The Court finds the R&R well-reasoned and agrees with Judge Ferraro's conclusions.
IT IS ORDERED the R&R is ADOPTED (Doc. 23) and Alexander E. Smith's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED and DISMISSED (Doc. 1). The Clerk of Court shall docket accordingly and close the case file in this matter.
Source: Leagle
