Barquera 310548 v. Rogers

Opinion

Mark Anthony Barquera, No. CV-19-05451-PHX-DLR (MTM)

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

Samuel Rogers, et al.,

Defendants. 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 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. IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 17) is ACCEPTED and 1 Petitioner’s motion to stay (Doc. 14) is DENIED. Respondents’ motion for an extension of time to respond to Petitioner’s motion to stay (Doc. 16) is DENIED as moot. Dated this 25th day of June, 2020. : Las Ue _- {UO States Dictric Judge

_2-