Mosby v. Shinn

1 WO 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8 Marcus Mosby, No. CV-21-00487-TUC-JCH 9 Petitioner, ORDER v. David Shinn, et al., 12 Respondents.

14 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") by Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman, (Doc. 14), regarding Marcus Mosby's (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) The R&R recommends that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 14 at 7.) The Court adopts the R&R in full.

19 Petitioner constructively filed his Petition on November 29, 2021. (Doc. 1.)

20 Respondents filed an Answer on January 11, 2022 (Doc. 11), Petitioner's Reply docketed on February 28, 2022 (Doc. 13). The R&R found Petitioner's two claims for relief— alleging violations under his speedy trial rights and his right to unbiased counsel—were unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. (Doc. 14 at 6–7.)

24 The standard of review applied to a report and recommendation depends on whether a party files an objection, the Court need not review portions to which a party does not object. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”)

1 || (emphasis in original). Here, neither party filed an objection within the time provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds it || thorough and well-reasoned. The Court accepts the R&R in full.

4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is accepted in full.

7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying || and dismissing petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, with prejudice (Doc. 1).

10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to || proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because petitioner failed to make a || substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, the petition's dismissal is | justified by a plain procedural bar, and reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

15 Dated this 19th day of August, 2022.

18 WS Ht br-b onorable John C. Hinderaker 19 United States District Judge -2-