Madrid v. Shinn

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Jesus Madrid, Jr., No. CV-20-00683-PHX-JAT

Petitioner, ORDER v. David Shinn, et al.,

Respondents.

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). Magistrate Judge Burns issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 17) recommending that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice because it is untimely under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s statute of limitations.

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection” (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ACCEPTED; accordingly, e Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed with prejudice, e in the event Petitioner files an appeal, issuance of a certificate of appealability is denied because denial of the petition is based on a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), and e the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice.

Dated this 13th day of May, 2021.

A

James A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge

_2-