Barquera 310548 v. Rogers

[5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Mark Anthony Barquera, No. CV-19-05451-PHX-DLR (MTM) 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 Samuel Rogers, et al., 13 Defendants. [15] 16 Before the Court are Petitioner’s motion to stay and Magistrate Judge Michael 17 Morrissey’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Docs. 14, 17.) The R&R 18 recommends that the Court deny the motion. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that 19 they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections 20 could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States 21 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner did not file objections, 22 which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Id.; Thomas v. Arn, 474 23 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any 24 issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge 25 must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 26 properly objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is 27 well-taken. 28 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 2|| of time to respond to Petitioner’s motion to stay (Doc. 16) is DENIED as moot. 3 Dated this 25th day of June, 2020. [5] : Las Ue 7 _- {UO 8 States Dictric Judge [28] _2-