Sinkevitch 336546 v. Thornell

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

9 Kathryn Sinkevitch, No. CV-24-00167-PHX-SHD 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Ryan Thornell, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 7). The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Amended Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice because Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted without excuse. (Doc. 13.) Neither party has objected to the R&R and the time for filing objections has run.

21 This Court “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)(1). It is “clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 25 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 26 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the 2|| [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are || 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) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. || § 636(b)(1) ([T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the || [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”’).

7 There being no objections, 8 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 13) is accepted.

9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition in this case is denied and || dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

11 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing || Section 2254 Cases and Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, in the event || Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a certificate of appealability because dismissal of the petition is based on a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not 15} find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

17 Dated this 25th day of June, 2025. / 18 2 / 20 H le Sharad H. Desai 21 United States District Judge _2-