Curtis 260104 v. Shinn

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

9 David W. Curtis, Jr., No. CV-19-04374-PHX-DGC (JZB) 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. David Shinn, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections; and Attorney General of the State of Arizona, 14 Respondents.

17 Petitioner David Curtis is serving time in Arizona state prison for sexually exploiting and molesting children. He commenced this federal action by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1.

20 Curtis has filed a motion to require the State to provide the Court with additional exhibits related to the state proceedings, including actual photos of child pornography.

22 Doc. 52. The motion is fully briefed. Docs. 53, 54.

23 Magistrate Judge John Boyle has issued a report recommending, in part, that Curtis’s motion be denied because the additional documents he seeks will not aid the Court’s decision on his habeas claims. Doc. 56 at 53-56. Curtis does not object to this finding and recommendation. See Doc. 62. The Court will accept the R&R in this regard and deny Curtis’s motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or || recommendations to which objection is made.”); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (explaining that § 636(b)(1) “does not .. . require any review at all, by either the district || court or the court of appeals, of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”); United 4|| States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (§ 636(b)(1) “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 Fed. R. 7\| 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.”).' 9 IT IS ORDERED: 10 1. Judge Boyle’s R&R (Doc. 56 at 53-55) is accepted in part as set forth above.

11 2. Curtis’s motion to require the State to provide the Court with exhibits (Doc. 52) is denied.

13 Dated this 30th day of September, 2021.

Dan 6 Co Dank & phth David G. Campbell Senior United States District Judge 28 ' The Court will address Curtis’s habeas claims and the remainder of the R&R ina separate order.

_2-