Calandra 350978 v. Thornell

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Damon Joseph Calandra, ) No. CV-24-08142-PCT-SPL ) ) 10 Petitioner, ) ORDER vs. ) ) ) Ryan Thornell, et al., ) ) 13 Respondents. ) ) 14 ) 15 The Court has before it, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), the Answer from the Respondents (Doc. 14), and a Reply from the Petitioner (Doc. 18). Additionally, the Court has also considered the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 20), Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 21), and Respondents’ Response (Doc. 22).

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 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 28 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 4| (9th Cir. 2000).

5 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.

8 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.

10| Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED: 12 1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) is | accepted and adopted by the Court; 14 2. That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 21) are overruled; 15 3. That Grounds One, Two, and Four of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) are denied, and Grounds Three, Five, and Six are dismissed as procedurally | defaulted; 18 4, That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis | on appeal are denied; and 20 5. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment according and terminate this 71 action.

22 Dated this 25th day of April, 2025.

United States District didge