McDowell v. Shinn

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

9 Queinten Davon McDowell, No. CV-19-00918-PHX-GMS 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Charles L Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents.

16 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) (Doc. 1) and United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 13). The R&R recommends that this Court dismiss the Petition with prejudice (Doc. 13 at 9). The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 10 (citing 28 22 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

24 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; 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.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly || objected to.”). The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition with prejudice. See 2|| 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in || whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P.72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; || receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 7 1. Magistrate Judge Boyle’s R&R (Doc. 13) is ACCEPTED.

8 2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.1) is DISMISSED 9|| WITH PREJUDICE.

10 3. The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this action and enter judgment || accordingly.

12 4. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the || event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

16 Dated this 2nd day of March, 2020.

17 - 8 A Whacrsay Sooo) Whicren 19 Chief United States District Judge _2-