Lamb v. Shinn

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

9 David Lee Lamb, No. CV-18-02569-PHX-RCC 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 On November 25, 2019, Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommended the Court dismiss Petitioner Alexander E. Smith’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). (Doc. 18.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to file any objections. No objections have been filed.

20 If neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the District Court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s decision under any specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the statute for review of a magistrate judge’s recommendation “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.

26 The Court has reviewed the Petition (Doc. 1), the Respondent’s Answer (Docs.

27 13-14), Petitioner’s Reply (Doc. 15), and Judge Ferraro’s R&R (Doc. 18). The Court finds the R&R well-reasoned and agrees with Judge Ferraro’s conclusions.

1 IT IS ORDERED the R&R is ADOPTED (Doc. 18) and David Lee Lamb’s 2|| Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED and 3|| DISMISSED (Doc. 1). The Clerk of Court shall docket accordingly and close the case 4|| file in this matter.

5 Dated this 19th day of December, 2019.

8 (J Dp Cb — Honorable Raner ©. Collins 10 senior United States District Judge _2-