Smith v. Shinn ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Alexander E. Smith, No. CV-18-00547-TUC-RCC 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 Charles Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 On November 25, 2019, Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommended the Court dismiss Petitioner 17 Alexander E. Smith’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 18 (“Petition”). (Doc. 23.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days from 19 the date of the R&R to file any objections. No objections have been filed. 20 If neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the 21 District Court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s decision under any 22 specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the 23 statute for review of a magistrate judge’s recommendation “does not preclude further 24 review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or 25 any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. 26 The Court has reviewed the Petition (Doc. 1), the Respondent’s Answer (Doc. 16), 27 and Judge Ferraro’s R&R (Doc. 23). The Court finds the R&R well-reasoned and agrees 28 with Judge Ferraro’s conclusions. I IT IS ORDERED the R&R is ADOPTED (Doc. 23) and Alexander E. Smith’s 2|| Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED and 3|| DISMISSED (Doc. 1). The Clerk of Court shall docket accordingly and close the case 4|| file in this matter. 5 Dated this 19th day of December, 2019. 6 7 8 (J Dp Cb — Honorable Raner ©. Collins 10 senior United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-