Santiago 324512 v. Shinn

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

9 Ricardo Santiago, No. CV-20-01406-PHX-GMS 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. David Shinn, et al., 13 Respondents.

16 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 12, 17. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss the Amended Petition with prejudice. Doc. 17 at 9. 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. Id. at 16 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

24 The parties did not file 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 will accept the R&R and deny the Amended Petition and dismiss 2|| with prejudice. 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; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate || judge with instructions.”).

7 IT IS ORDERED: 8 1. Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett’s R&R (Doc. 17) is ACCEPTED.

9 2. Petitioner’s Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 12) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

11 3. The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this action and enter judgment || accordingly.

13 4. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 15} because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See 16|| Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

17 Dated this Ist day of July, 2021.

18 - 19 A Whacrsay Fotos Micrrey 20 Chief United States District Judge -2-