Lerma 080531 v. Thornell

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

9 Alfredo Lerma, No. CV-24-01148-PHX-DLR 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Ryan Thornell, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Before the Court is Petitioner Alfredo Lerma’s amended Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 16 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 7) and United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S.

17 Willett’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 21). The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the amended petition with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Neither party filed objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R in its entirety. 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 2|| magistrate’); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the || recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

5 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 21) is ACCEPTED.

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s amended petition (Doc. 7) is DENIED 7\| and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed 9|| in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because dismissal of the Amended Petition is || justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling |} debatable.

12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment || accordingly and terminate this case.

14 Dated this 18th day of April, 2025.

17 {Z, 18 _- Ae 19 Sone United Sintes District Judge _2-