Wilson 264068 v. Larson

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

9 Kazuhiko Matsumoto Wilson, No. CV-18-08323-PCT-DWL 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Berry Larson, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 8) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 31). The conclusions set forth in the R&R, which was issued on November 14, 2019, can be summarized as follows: 19 Petitioner raises six grounds for relief in his Petition and Amended Petition.

The Court finds that Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted without 20 excuse, not cognizable, or fail on the merits. Therefore, the Court will 21 recommend that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 1.) The R&R further advised Petitioner that he had a certain number of days to file objections and that the “[f]ailure to timely file objections . . . may result in the acceptance of the [R&R] by the district court without further review.” (Id. at 22.)

Following the issuance of the R&R, Petitioner filed a pair of requests to extend the deadline for filing objections. (Docs. 32, 34.) Both requests were granted (Docs. 33, 35), but the Court emphasized when granting the second request—which extended the deadline to January 23, 2020—that “[n]o further extensions were granted.” (Doc. 35.) Afterward, Petitioner filed a motion for stay. (Doc. 36.) In an order issued on March 5, 2020, the Court denied the stay motion in significant part and denied several other motions Petitioner had filed before issuance of the R&R. (Doc. 39.) Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the Court once again extended the deadline for Petitioner to file objections to the R&R, while again emphasizing that this deadline was binding: “Petitioner’s deadline to file objections to the R&R . . . is extended to June 4, 2020. No further extensions will be granted.” (Id. at 4.)

8 Following the issuance of this order, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.

9 (Doc. 40.) On April 7, 2020, the Court issued an order denying this motion. (Doc. 44.)

10 The June 4, 2020 deadline for filing objections to the R&R has now expired and no objections have been filed. 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, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

20 Accordingly, 21 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 31) is accepted, that the Amended Petition (Doc. 8) is denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

24 … 25 … 26 … 27 … 28 … 1 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 4|| petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the || procedural ruling debatable.

6 Dated this 12th day of June, 2020.

8 Lam a’ 9 f CC —— Dominic W. Lanza 10 United States District Judge -3-