Yi Rong v. State of Arizona, et al.

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

9 Yi Rong, No. CV-25-00351-TUC-JGZ (LCK) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. State of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Lynnette C. Kimmins that recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 23.)

19 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). “[T]he 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 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). 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). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

26 // // // 1 DISCUSSION1 2 Plaintiff’s objection raises essentially the same arguments she raised before Magistrate Judge Kimmins. As thoroughly explained by Magistrate Judge Kimmins, Plaintiff’s claims are either not cognizable, barred as a matter of law, or fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because Plaintiff’s objection does not undermine the analysis and proper conclusion reached by Magistrate Judge Kimmins, Plaintiff’s objection is rejected, and the Report and Recommendation is adopted.

8 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability must issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1) (the applicant cannot take an appeal unless a circuit justice or a circuit or district judge issues a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 11 2253(c)). Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. In the certificate, the court must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). A substantial showing is made when the resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the issue deserves further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).

17 Upon review of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not debatable among reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings.

20 // // // // // // // The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 22.)

1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted and adopted; 4 2. Plaintiff's Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) is overruled.

5 3. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) is dismissed with prejudice.

6 4. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this matter.

8 Dated this 12th day of February, 2026.

Jennifer G. Zips 12 Chiet United States District Judge _3-