Centeno-Sarabia 267426 v. Shinn

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Jorge C. Centeno-Sarabia, No. CV-23-00075-PHX-GMS-FJM Petitioner, 10 ORDER v. and DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Ryan Thornell1, APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA 13 PAUPERIS STATUS Respondents.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc. 54) regarding petitioner’s Motion to Amend his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 48). The R&R recommends that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 9 (citing United States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner filed objections on April 30, 2024 (Doc. 57) and Respondents filed a reply on May 15, 2024 (Doc. 58).

The Court has considered the objections and reply 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). In his objection, Mr. Centeno- 26 1 Ryan Thornell is the current Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Thornell is automatically substituted for David Shinn as the party of record.

1 | Sarabia objects to the R&R’s conclusion that amendment to his habeas petition to add a | new ground for relief (Ground Six) of “Actual Innocence” based on DNA evidence would || be futile. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determinations in these respects, 4] and further notes that Mr. Centeno-Sarabia’s objections do not substantively address Judge || Metcalf’s recommendation refuting them, or his resulting conclusions about the application || of law regarding the standard to amend, exhaustion or lack of merit. The Court thus 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, the findings or recommendations made by the || magistrate’).

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

12 }| 54) is accepted.

13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying | Petitioner’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 48) and denying and dismissing Petitioner’s Petition || for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) with prejudice. The || Clerk shall terminate this action.

17 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District | Courts requires the district court to “issue or a deny a certificate of appealability when it || enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Should | Petitioner seek a certificate of appealability, a certificate of appealability should be denied |} because he has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

22 Dated this 10th day of June, 2024.

23 - *) 34 A Whacrsay Fotos Micrrey 25 Chief United States District Judge 27 5.