Larin 199915 v. Shinn

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

9 George Benjamin Larin, No. CV-19-00545-TUC-JCH 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. David Shinn, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 On November 19, 2019, pro se Petitioner George Benjamin Larin (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera. (Doc. 2.) On February 11, 2022, Judge Aguilera issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court dismiss the petition for the following reasons: claims (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are procedurally defaulted without excuse; claim (a) does not overcome deference— governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)—as to the state court’s decision; and all claims fail under de novo review. (See generally Doc. 24.)

23 The R&R advised the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. No objections have been filed within the time provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).1 1 The standard of review that is applied to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is dependent upon whether a party files an objection – the Court need not review portions of a report to which a party does not object. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

However, the Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition 1 After an independent review, the Courts finds it appropriate to adopt the R&R in || full and dismiss the Petition.

3 Accordingly, 4 1. IT IS ORDERED ADOPTING IN FULL the Report and Recommendation 5 (Doc. 24).

6 2. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 7 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1). The Clerk 8 of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in this matter.

9 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 10 Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to 11 issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists could not “debate 12 whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved 13 in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 14 encouragement to proceed further.’” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 15 (2000) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

16 || Dated this 10th day of March, 2022.

19 WS Ht. onorable John C. Hinderaker 20 United States District Judge that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). _2-