Mayr v. Shinn

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

9 Ted James Mayr, No. CV-20-02479-PHX-DLR 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. David Shinn, et al., 13 Respondents.

16 Before the Court is Petitioner Ted James Mayr’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), and United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 10). The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss the petition 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). Petitioner filed an objection on May 3, 2021, but he does not raise any specific objections. Instead, he purports to object to all of Magistrate Judge Willett’s recommendations, without articulating any basis for such objections. (Doc. 11.) As such, Petitioner’s objection is functionally no objection at all.

26 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 2|| modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the || magistrate judge with instructions.”).

4 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 10) is ACCEPTED. The petition (Doc. 1) 5|| is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed || in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because dismissal of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar.

8 Dated this 18th day of August, 2021. ll {Z, 12 _- Ae 13 Upited States Dictic Judge _2-