Rondon v. Wolf

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

9 Yopselin Mercedes Rondon, No. CV-19-05677-PHX-DLR 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Chad Wolf, et al., 13 Respondents.

16 Before the Court is Petitioner Yopselin Mercedes Rondon’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and United States Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 18). The R&R recommends that the Court deny the petition and dismiss it with prejudice. 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. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Neither party filed 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 has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R in its entirety. 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; 4|| receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

5 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Morrissey’s R&R (Doc. 18) is 6|| ACCEPTED. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED and 7\| DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED because || dismissal is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the 9|| procedural ruling debatable, and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of || the denial of a constitutional right. The Clerk is directed to terminate this case.

11 Dated this 22nd day of September, 2020.

14 {Z, 16 Upited States Dictria Judge _2-