Bucholtz 306378 v. Shinn

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

9 Jeffrey Glenn Bucholtz, No. CV-21-01939-PHX-GMS 10 Petitioner, ORDER and v. DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF David Shinn, et al., APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 13 Respondents.

16 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Bibles (Doc. 17) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that the Petition be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 39 (citing Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Petitioner filed objections on February 6, 2023 (Doc. 22) and Respondent file a Response to Petitioner’s Objections on February 16, 2023 (Doc. 23).

23 The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § || 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 2|| the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate’).

3 IT IS ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc.

17) 1s accepted.

5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying || Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc.

1). The Clerk shall terminate this action.

8 IT IS FURHTER ORDERED if Petitioner seeks a certificate of appealability it is || denied because Petitioner has not shown that “jurists of reason would find it debatable 10|| whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and || that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 648 (2012); Miller-El v. 14|| Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).

15 Dated this 23rd day of February, 2023.

Whirs ) 7 A Whacrsay Sooo) 18 Chief United States District Judge _2-