McDonald v. Unknown Party

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Tim D. McDonald, ) No. CV 22-08209-PCT-SPL ) ) 10 Petitioner, ) ORDER v. ) ) ) Ryan Thornell, et al., ) ) 13 Respondents. ) ) 14 ) 15 The Court has before it, Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 7), a Supplement in Support of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc 26), the Limited Answer from the Respondents, (Doc. 34) and a Reply from the Petitioner. (Doc. 35) Additionally, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 39), and the Petitioner’s Objections, (Doc. 45) have also been considered, along with the Respondent’s Reply to the Petitioner’s Objections. (Doc.46) 21 A district judge “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). When a party files a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 1| U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or | arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 (9th Cir. 2000).

6 The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently | developed record. The Petitioner’s objections to the findings and recommendations have | also been thoroughly considered.

9 After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches | the same conclusions reached by the magistrate judge. The R&R will be adopted in full.

11 | Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED: 13 1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 39) is 14| accepted and adopted by the Court.

15 2. That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 45) are overruled.

16 3. That the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 7) is denied and | this action is dismissed with prejudice.

18 4, That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis | onappeal are denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural | bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable; and 21 5. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment according and terminate this | action.

23 Dated this 17th day of January 2024.

6 United States District didge