Shook v. Shinn

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Casey Leon Shook, No. CV-19-04905-PHX-NVW (MTM) Petitioner, 10 ORDER v. and DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF David Shinn, et al., 12 APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA 13 Respondents. PAUPERIS STATUS 14 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey (Doc. 18) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 25 (citing United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner filed objections on August 19, 2020 (Doc. 21) and Respondents filed a Response to Petitioner’s Objection on August 31, 2020 (Doc. 23).

22 The Court has considered the objections and response and reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 28 | 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’).

3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 18) is accepted.

5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying | and dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. | § 2254 (Doc. 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s Application for Certificate of | Appealability (Doc. 22) is denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain || procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable, and because | Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

12 Dated this 31st day of August, 2020. i MLL the 15 Neil V. Wake 16 Senior United States District Judge 27 5.