United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 2025

Gamble 325334 v. Thornell

Gamble 325334 v. Thornell
United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Decided May 23, 2025
Gamble 325334 v. Thornell

Trial Court Opinion

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

9 Tony Shumenko Gamble, No. CV-23-02352-PHX-DWL 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Ryan Thornell, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 31). The R&R, which was issued on April 30, 2025, recommends that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice and further provides that “[t]he parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this [R&R] within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 32 at 12.)

21 Here, no such objections have been filed and the 14-day deadline has expired. Thus, the Court adopts the R&R. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 31) is accepted, 4|| that the Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that the Clerk of || Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to 7\| proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a || substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

9 Dated this 21st day of May, 2025.

11 Lm 12 f CC —— Dominic W. Lanza 13 United States District Judge -2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.