Dora Alicia Quiroz-Leyva v. State of Arizona, et al.

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

9 Dora Alicia Quiroz-Leyva, No. CV-25-00765-PHX-JJT 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. State of Arizona, et al., 13 Respondent.

15 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14, “R&R”) entered by United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine recommending that the Court dismiss and deny with prejudice Ms. Quiroz-Leyva’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 2254 by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1). In the R&R, Judge Fine advised the parties they were “allowed fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of [the R&R] within which to file specific written objections to the Court,” and that failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge “ may may result in the acceptance of [the R&R] by the District Court without further review,” as provided in United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 14 at 13.) It has been 38 days since entry of the R&R and no party has filed any objection. The District Court is thus free to accept the R&R and its analysis without further review. It nonetheless reviews the issues raised in the Petition and Response thereto on their merits.

27 Upon doing so, it concludes, for the reasons set forth in the R&R, that Judge Fine is correct and it will deny and dismiss with prejudice the Petition.

3 The remaining Grounds 2 and 3 raised in the Petition are barred by Stone V. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976). As Judge Fine found in the R&R, a review of the state court || proceedings “unequivocally demonstrates that Petitioner had the opportunity to fully and 6|| fairly litigate fourth amendment claims in the state courts, and she in fact did so.” (R&R at 7\| 12.) The Fourth Amendment issues raised in Grounds 2 and 3 are beyond the habeas review || of the Court.

9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED adopting in whole the R&R entered by Judge || Fine (Doc. 14), including its reasoning.

11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing with prejudice the Petition || for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a person in state custody |} (Doc. 1).

14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment || accordingly and close this matter.

16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a certificate of appealability, upon the 17|| Court’s finding that the dismissal of Petitioner’s claims | and 4 is justified by a plain || procedural bar, and that reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling debatable; || and because Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a || constitutional right as to claims 2 and 3, and jurists of reason would not find this conclusion regarding the rejection of Petitioner’s claims on constitutional grounds to be debatable or || wrong.

23 Dated this 4th day of December, 2025. CN ‘wala 5 □□□ holee— United StatesDistrict Judge _2-