Kittrell v. Shinn

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

9 Dennis Eugene Kittrell, No. CV-21-08033-PCT-DWL 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. David Shinn, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 9). The R&R, which was issued on September 15, 2021, recommended that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice and further provided that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 9 at 13.)

22 Here, no such objections have been filed. Thus, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 1|| (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 2|| de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”’).

3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 9) is accepted, || that the Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that the Clerk of || Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to || proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because petitioner has not made a 9|| substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and because the dismissal of the || petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

12 Dated this 13th day of October, 2021.

14 Lm ee” 15 f CC —— Dominic W. Lanza 16 United States District Judge _2-