Jackson v. Arizona, State of ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jerald Jackson, No. CV-21-08187-PCT-JAT 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 On November 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued 16 a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Petition for Writ of 17 Habeas Corpus in this case be denied. (Doc. 8). This Court granted Petitioner an extension 18 of time through December 23, 2021, to file objections to the R&R. To date, Petitioner has 19 not filed objections to the R&R. 20 Because neither party has filed objections to the R&R, the Court hereby accepts the 21 R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not 22 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection” 23 (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en 24 banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s 25 findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis 26 in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); 27 Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th 28 Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] 1 || recommendations to which the parties object.’’. ! 2 Based on the foregoing, 3 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8) is ACCEPTED; accordingly, 5 e Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed with 6 prejudice, 7 e in the event Petitioner files an appeal, issuance of a certificate of appealability is 8 denied for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, and 9 e the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice. 10 Dated this 2nd day of March, 2022. 11 12 13 14 James A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24| 1 The Court notes that the Notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules appeat to suggest a clear error standard of review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), citing Campbell. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES— 1983 citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 (The court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The court in Campbell, however, appears to delineate a standard of review specific to magistrate judge findings in the motion to suppress context. See Campbell, 501 F.2d at 206-207. Because this case is || not within this limited context, this Court follows the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Reyna-Tapia on the standard of review. _2-