Smith 252757 v. Hetmer

D. Arizona

Smith 252757 v. Hetmer

DecidedJanuary 5, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-00126

StatusUnknown

This text of Smith 252757 v. Hetmer (Smith 252757 v. Hetmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith 252757 v. Hetmer, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Christopher Lee Smith, No. CV-23-00126-PHX-MTL (ASB)

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Lance Hetmer, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Alison S. 16 Bachus (“R & R”) (Doc. 18) recommending that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17 15) be denied. Respondents have not filed any objections to the R & R. The deadline to do 18 so passed fourteen days following service of the R & R, which issued on December 8, 19 2023. Four weeks have now passed. 20 In reviewing an R & R, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 21 the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 22 “[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's finding and recommendations de 23 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 24 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 25 149 (1985) (finding that the District Court need not conduct “any review at all . . . of any 26 issue that is not the subject of an objection”). No objections having been received, the Court 27 will accept and adopt the R & R in its entirety. 28 Accordingly, 1 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is accepted. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is || denied. 4 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondents shall file an Answer to Petitioner’s 5|| Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) that (1) is limited to relevant affirmative 6|| defenses, including, but not limited to, statute of limitations, procedural bar, or non-retroactivity; (2) raises affirmative defenses as to some claims and discusses the merits 8 || of others; or (3) discusses the merits of all claims no later than January 12, 2024. 9 Dated this 5th day of January, 2024. 10 Wichal T. Hburde Michael T. Liburdi 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Christopher Lee Smith, No. CV-23-00126-PHX-MTL (ASB)

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Lance Hetmer, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Alison S. 16 Bachus (“R & R”) (Doc. 18) recommending that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17 15) be denied. Respondents have not filed any objections to the R & R. The deadline to do 18 so passed fourteen days following service of the R & R, which issued on December 8, 19 2023. Four weeks have now passed. 20 In reviewing an R & R, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 21 the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 22 “[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's finding and recommendations de 23 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 24 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 25 149 (1985) (finding that the District Court need not conduct “any review at all . . . of any 26 issue that is not the subject of an objection”). No objections having been received, the Court 27 will accept and adopt the R & R in its entirety. 28 Accordingly, 1 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is accepted. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is || denied. 4 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondents shall file an Answer to Petitioner’s 5|| Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) that (1) is limited to relevant affirmative 6|| defenses, including, but not limited to, statute of limitations, procedural bar, or non-retroactivity; (2) raises affirmative defenses as to some claims and discusses the merits 8 || of others; or (3) discusses the merits of all claims no later than January 12, 2024. 9 Dated this 5th day of January, 2024. 10 Wichal T. Hburde Michael T. Liburdi 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith 252757 v. Hetmer, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-252757-v-hetmer-azd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack