Ruelas v. Shinn

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

9 Thaddaeus Sanchez Ruelas, No. CV-22-00491-TUC-JGZ 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. David Shinn, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Lynette C. Kimmins. (Doc 15.) Magistrate Judge Kimmins recommends denying Petitioner’s § 2254 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

18 (Id.) Neither party has filed an objection to the R&R and the time to file objections has expired.

20 This 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). “[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings 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). District courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. There being no objection to the R&R, the Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Kimmins’s recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149– 54.

2 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court’s judgment, a certificate of appealability || (COA) must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1); Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. “The district court must issue or deny a certification || of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11(a) of the 6|| Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may 7\| issue only when the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a || constitutional right.” The court must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing.

9|| See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). With respect to claims rejected on the merits, a petitioner “must || demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the || constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

For procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable jurists could debate whether || the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and whether the court’s 14]| procedural ruling was correct. Jd. Applying these standards, the Court concludes that a || certificate shall not issue, as the resolution of the petition is not debatable among reasonable jurists. Accordingly, 17 IT IS ORDERED: 18 1. Magistrate Judge Kimmins’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is adopted.

19 2. Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 6) is denied.

20 3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this action.

21 Dated this 23rd day of September, 2024.

23 / 3 24 /, Jennifer G. Zi 25 United States District Judge _2-