Coleman 337202 v. Shinn

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

9 Robert Lee Coleman, No. CV-21-01619-PHX-MTL 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. David Shinn, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R & R) by Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns, recommending that Petitioner Robert Lee Coleman’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be denied and dismissed with prejudice (Doc. 13.) The Court adopts Judge Burns’ R & R. 19 Petitioner filed the Petition on September 21, 2021. (Doc. 1.) Respondents filed an answer on November 22, 2021 (Doc. 12), and no reply was filed. The R & R found Petitioner’s two claims for relief, ineffective assistance of counsel and double jeopardy, were unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. (Doc. 13 at 6–7.)

23 Neither party has filed objections to the R & R. The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts need || not conduct “any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection’).

2|| Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the R & R. 3 Based on the foregoing, 4 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is accepted.

5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to || proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because Movant has not made a substantial || showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (See Doc. 13 at 8.)

8 Dated this 25th day of May, 2022.

Wicked T. Sibu Michael T. Liburdi 12 United States District Judge -2-