Wilson v. Shinn

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

9 Cornell Wilson, Jr., No. CV-19-01979-PHX-GMS 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Charles L Ryan, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Fine’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Docs. 1, 14.) The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss the Petition with prejudice. (Doc. 14 at 13.) 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 13-14 (citing 28 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)).

22 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 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.”).

4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 5 1. Magistrate Judge Fine’s R&R (Doc. 14) is ACCEPTED.

6 2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED 7\| WITH PREJUDICE.

8 3. The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this action and enter judgment 9|| accordingly.

10 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).

14 Dated this 21st day of May, 2020.

15 Wi, *) 16 A Whacrsay Sooo) 17 Chief United states District Judge -2-