Wauneka v. Shinn

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

9 Delbert Wauneka, No. CV-21-00471-PHX-GMS 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. David Shinn, et al., 13 Respondents.

16 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Fine (Doc. 59) regarding Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 15). The R&R recommends that the Second Amended Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 48 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Petitioner filed objections (Doc.

22 60) and Respondents filed a Reply to Objections (Doc. 66).

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 THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the 4|| Magistrate Judge (Doc. 59) is accepted.

5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 6|| and dismissing Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 15) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this || action.

9 Any request for a certificate of appealability is denied because appellant has not || shown that “jurists of reason would find it debatable 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 vy. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).

15 Dated this 23rd day of March, 2023.

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