Burgess 332553 v. Thornell

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

9 Jeremiah Michael Burgess, No. CV-24-08042-PCT-DLR 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Ryan Thornell, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Before the Court is Petitioner Jeremiah Michael Burgess’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and United States Magistrate Judge Bachus’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 15). The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the 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 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 magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 2|| 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.”).

4 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 15) is ACCEPTED.

5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED and 6|| DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed || in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because Petitioner has not shown jurists of || reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable, and because Petitioner has not made || asubstantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

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

13 Dated this 20th day of June, 2025.

16 {Z, 18 Son United States District Judge _2-