Johnson 340852 v. Shinn

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

9 Rodney Carl Johnson, No. CV-22-01205-PHX-MTL 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. David Shinn, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Eileen S.

16 Willett (“R & R”) (Doc. 24) recommending that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 7) be dismissed with prejudice, and that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied.

19 After the R & R was filed, the initial 14-day period closed without Petitioner filing any objections. Instead of filing objections, he filed motions seeking relief beyond that allowed for under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). (Docs. 25, 27, 29.) One of the motions was filed within the initial 14-day objection period while the others were filed later. The Court, in a written Order (Doc. 30), denied those motions and invited Petitioner to file his objections within 14 days. That Order was issued on December 1, 2023 and it was mailed to Petitioner on December 4, 2023. More than three weeks have now passed since the Order was mailed, and Petitioner has not filed any objections nor requested any additional time to file objections.

28 In reviewing an 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).

2|| “[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's finding 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 the District Court need not conduct “any review at all. . . of any 6|| issue that is not the subject of an objection’). No objections having been received, the Court 7\| will accept and adopt the R & R in its entirety.

8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24) is accepted.

10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas || Corpus (Doc. 7) is dismissed with prejudice.

12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the issuance of a certificate of appealability || and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists could find the ruling debatable or conclude that the issues presented || are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).

17 Dated this 26th day of December, 2023.

Micha T. Sihurde Michael T, Liburdi 21 United States District Judge _2-