Quinerly v. Arizona, State of

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

9 Curtis Quinerly, No. CV-21-00578-PHX-DLR 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et al., Respondents.

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 12), which recommends that Petitioners’ petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) be denied and dismissed with prejudice and that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied. 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 23 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.”). “Unless this court has definite and firm conviction that the [Magistrate Judge] committed a clear error of judgment, [this court] will not disturb [the] 2|| decision.” Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation || omitted).

4 The Court has nonetheless independently reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well- taken. The Court therefore will accept the R&R in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 6|| (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 7\| 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 9|| evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

10 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Willett’s R&R (Doc. 12) is ACCEPTED.

11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH 13} PREJUDICE.

14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to || proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied.

16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment || and terminate the case.

18 Dated this 25th day of August, 2021.

21 {Z, 22 _- Ae 23 Ueited States Dictric Judge _2-