Bearden v. Hacker-Agnew

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

9 Wayne B Bearden, Jr., No. CV-18-02451-PHX-JAT 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Carla Hacker-Agnew, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation from the Magistrate Judge recommending that the Petition in this case be denied and dismissed as untimely.

17 (Doc. 12). This Court previously granted an extension of time, to September 6, 2019, to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 14). No timely objections have been received.

20 Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection” (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

27 Based on the foregoing, 28 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) is ACCEPTED; 1 ° Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed with prejudice, 3 e in the event Petitioner files an appeal, issuance of a certificate of 4|| appealability is denied because denial of the petition is based on a plain procedural bar and || jurists of reason would not find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack vy.

6|| McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), and 7 ° the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice.

8 Dated this 20th day of September, 2019.

10 A James A. Teilborg 12 Senior United States District Judge _2-