Scavelli v. Arizona, State of ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Joseph Scavelli, III, No. CV-20-02482-PHX-DLR (DMF) 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 State of Arizona, et al., 13 Respondent. 14 15 Before the Court is Petitioner Joseph Scavelli, III’s Amended Petition (Doc. 4) and 16 United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 17 (Doc. 18). The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the amended petition 18 with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file 19 objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a 20 waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 21 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Neither party filed objections, which relieves the Court 22 of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 23 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . 24 of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district 25 judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 26 properly objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is 27 well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 28 (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the || findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The 2|| district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 3 || evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 4 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 18) is ACCEPTED. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s amended petition (Doc. 4) is DENIED 6|| and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed 8 || in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because dismissal of the Amended Petition for 9|| Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 4) is justified by a plain 10 || procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 11 Dated this 22nd day of November, 2021. 12 13 14 {Z, 16 Upited States Dictria Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-