Chesmore v. Gonzales

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 William Doyal Chesmore, No. CV-19-01260-PHX-DWL 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. David Gonzales, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), Motion to Preliminarily Enjoin Respondents from Executing the Detainer in Violation of Law (Doc. 4), and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge, recommending the denial of the petition and the motion (Doc. 16). The R&R, which was issued on June 18, 2019, provided that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 16 at 15.)

23 Here, no such objections have been filed. Indeed, Petitioner filed a notice that he does not intend to file objections. (Doc. 19.) Thus, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o || review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1221 (9th Cir. 2003) 3|| C‘[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”’).

5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 16) is accepted and adopted, that the Petition (Doc. 1) is denied with prejudice, that the Motion to Preliminarily Enjoin Respondents || from Executing the Detainer in Violation of Law (Doc. 4) is denied with prejudice, and □□ that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to |} proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because petitioner has not made a || substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and because the dismissal of the 13} petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

15 Dated this 16th day of July, 2019.

17 ~~ — 19 United States District Judge -2-