Bolivar 325679 v. Thornell

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

9 Ruben Bolivar, No. CV-24-00271-TUC-AMM 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Ryan Thornell, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 On April 18, 2025, Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court deny Petitioner Ruben Bolivar’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody and dismiss this case with prejudice. (Doc. 20.) The Magistrate Judge notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days to file any written objections to the proposed findings and recommendation.

20 (Id. at 19.) Neither party filed an objection, and the time to do so has now passed.

21 A district court is 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 23 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes 1983 Addition.

28 /// 1 The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 20), the Petition for 2|| Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), Response (Doc. 10), Amended Petition for Writ of || Habeas Corpus (Doc. 17), Supplemental Response (Doc. 18), and Reply (Doc. 19). The Court finds no clear error and accepts the recommendation.

5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc.

7\| 20.)

8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Doc. 17.) The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing || Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 484 (2000).

16 Dated this 16th day of May, 2025.

18 bw 2. Ywucte 19 Honorable Angela M. Martinez 20 United States District Judge _2-