Opinion
No. 04-1683-PHX-ROS.
November 23, 2005
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss's Report and Recommendation ("RR"), recommending that the Court dismiss Petitioner David Green's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. For the reasons stated below, the Court will adopt the RR and dismiss the Petition.
BACKGROUND
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Voss on August 13, 2004. (Doc. # 2) Petitioner argues that he is serving a longer sentence than the one imposed by the court at his sentencing. Petitioner believes that some of his sentences were meant to run concurrently rather than consecutively. In his RR, Judge Voss found that the facts regarding Petitioner's sentencing do not support his claim. Neither party filed objections to the RR.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
"Failure to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact." Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2000); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("Within ten days after being served with a copy [of the RR], any party may serve and file written objections. . . . [T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [RR] to which objection is made.") (emphasis added);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."). This is so because "[t]he filing of objections . . . enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues . . . that are at the heart of the parties' dispute." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 147. Indeed, it "would be an inefficient use of judicial resources" to "force the district court to review every issue in every case, no matter how thorough the magistrate's analysis and even if both parties were satisfied with the magistrate's [RR]." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 148.
The district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The decision of whether to issue a separate written opinion, however, is entirely within the district court's discretion. See Boniface v. Carlson, 881 F.2d 669, 672 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming Arizona district court's decision to adopt magistrate's RR without written opinion and stating: "Petitioner's . . . claim that the district court erred in adopting the magistrate's [RR] without a written opinion is without merit since the necessity of a separate opinion is entirely within the discretion of the judge.").
B. Analysis
Whether Petitioner's sentences were meant to be concurrent or consecutive is a factual issue. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the sentences currently being served by Petitioner were "fully supported by the state court record and are not at all unreasonable in light of that record." (Doc. 14) As mentioned earlier, the parties' failure to file objections to the RR "waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact." Jones, 207 F.3d at 562 n. 2. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Petition be denied with prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Voss's Report Recommendation (Doc. #14) is hereby ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner David Green's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.#1) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.