Lara v. Unknown Party ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Esteban Benito Lara, No. CV-20-01146-PHX-GMS (MHB) 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 Unknown Party, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 15 Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns (Doc. 16) issued June 3, 2021, regarding petitioner’s 16 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 9). 17 The R&R recommends that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The 18 Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the 19 R&R. (R&R at 11 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of 20 Civil Procedure). No objections were filed. 21 Because the parties did not file objections, the Court need not review any of the 22 Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. 23 R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 24 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any 25 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a 26 timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the 27 rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A 28 party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a 1 | copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not 2| timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 4 Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and 5 | finds that it is well taken. The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition. See 28 6| 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”). 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the 9| Magistrate Judge (Doc. 16) is accepted. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 11 | and dismissing petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 12} 28U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 9) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 13 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event 14 Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because 15 | appellant has not shown that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition 16 | states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 17 | find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 18 | McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 19} 1328S. Ct. 641, 648 (2012); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). 20 Dated this 29th day of October, 2021. 21 Wi 22 A Whacrsay Sooo) 23 Chief United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 _2-