Brown 281275 v. Thornell

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Domin ique Dishawn Brown, ) No. CV-24-02492-PHX-SPL ) ) 10 Petitioner, ) ORDER vs. ) ) ) Ryan Thornell, et al., ) ) 13 Respondents. ) ) 14 ) 15 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 16 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), the Limited Answer from Respondents (Doc. 12), and Petitioner’s Reply (Doc. 13). Additionally, the Court has also considered the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 14), Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 15), Respondents’ Response (Doc. 16), and Petitioner’s Reply (Doc. 17).1 20 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 Petitioner filed a reply to Respondents’ response to Petitioner’s objections. (Doc.

17). A reply is not permitted under the Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7, 72(b)(2); LRCiv. P. 7.2. Respondents moved to strike Petitioner’s reply because it is any impermissible sur- reply. (Doc. 18). Although Respondents are correct that a sur-reply is not procedurally permitted, the Court nonetheless considered the sur-reply and finds that it does not change the outcome of this case. As a result, the motion to strike will be denied.

1 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 4 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).

9 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.

12 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.

14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS ORDERED: 16 1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is accepted and adopted by the Court; 18 2. That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 15) are overruled; 19 3. That the Motion to Strike (Doc. 18) is denied; 20 4. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied, and this action is dismissed with prejudice; 22 5. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable and Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right; and /// /// /// /// 1 6. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment according and terminate this action.

3 Dated this 18th day of April, 2025.

6 United States District kadge