Scavelli v. Arizona, State of

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

9 Joseph Scavelli, III, No. CV-20-02482-PHX-DLR (DMF) 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. State of Arizona, et al., 13 Respondent.

15 Before the Court is Petitioner Joseph Scavelli, III’s Amended Petition (Doc. 4) and United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 18). The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the amended 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 21 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 . . .

24 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 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 2|| district judge may accept, reject, or 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. 18) is ACCEPTED.

5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s amended petition (Doc. 4) is DENIED 6|| and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed || in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because dismissal of the Amended Petition for 9|| Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 4) is justified by a plain || procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

11 Dated this 22nd day of November, 2021.

14 {Z, 16 Upited States Dictria Judge _2-