Filed: Jul. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 30, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROSLYN O. SILVER , Senior District Judge . On June 12, 2015, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. 11). No objections were filed. A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. 636(b). Where any party has filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's R&R, the district court's revi
Summary: ORDER ROSLYN O. SILVER , Senior District Judge . On June 12, 2015, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. 11). No objections were filed. A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. 636(b). Where any party has filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's R&R, the district court's revie..
More
ORDER
ROSLYN O. SILVER, Senior District Judge.
On June 12, 2015, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. 11). No objections were filed.
A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Where any party has filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's R&R, the district court's review of the part objected to is to be de novo. Id. If, however, no objections are filed, the district court need not conduct such a review. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). No objections were filed and the R&R will be adopted in full.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ADOPTED and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
