Harm 147584 v. Shinn

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

9 Brian L. Harm, No. CV-18-01072-PHX-JJT (MHB) 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) (“R&R”) entered by United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns in this matter recommending the Court dismiss Brian L. Harm’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Doc. 1).

18 Petitioner was warned in the R&R that he had 14 days from its entry on June 24, 2019, in which to file any objections thereto. (Doc. 19 at 26.) That deadline passed on July 8, 2019, nearly a year ago, and Petitioner has filed no objections. The Court may therefore accept the R&R without further review. United States v. Tapia-Reyna, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). It does so. 23 The Court nonetheless also has conducted a substantive review of the Petition and the supporting filings, and thereafter concludes that Judge Burns’s R&R, and all of its reasoning, is correct.

26 As Judge Burns found, Ground Four of the Petition is unexhausted and therefore procedurally defaulted without excuse, and Grounds One through Three are appropriately || denied on the merits because the Arizona state court’s resolution of the three issues raised 2|| therein were not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, federal law.

3 IT IS ORDERED adopting in whole Judge Burns’s R&R (Doc. 19) and dismissing 4|| and denying with prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. □□ 2254 (Doc. 1).

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 7\| proceed in forma pauperis. Dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar, || reasonable jurists would not find the ruling here debatable.

9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment || accordingly and close this matter.

11 Dated this 12th day of June, 2020. CN 12 “wok: 13 wefehlee— Unig State#District Judge -2-