Woolsey v. Shinn ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Brian W oolsey, ) No. CV-21-02162-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Petitioner, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) David Shinn, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Respondents. ) ) 14 ) 15 Petitioner Brian Woolsey has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 16 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Honorable Eileen S. Willett, United States Magistrate 17 Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 21), recommending that the 18 Court dismiss Ground One and the first subsection of Ground Two with prejudice and deny 19 the second subsection of Ground Two. Judge Willett advised the parties that they had 20 fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections 21 could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. (Doc. 21 at 17) 22 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 23 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 24 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 25 review the R&R.1 See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 26 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 27 1 Petitioner requested two extensions (Docs. 22, 24) which were granted (Docs. 23, 28 25). No objection, however, was filed on the docket. not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 2| determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. 4) The Court will adopt the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 6 | recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge 7 | may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 8 | return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED: 10 1. That Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11 | 21) 1s accepted and adopted by the Court; 12 2. That Ground One and the first subsection of Ground Two of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) are dismissed with prejudice and the second subsection of Ground Two is denied; 15 3. The Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 1 at 15) is denied; 16 4. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 17 | appeal are denied; and 18 5. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 19 Dated this 5th day of December, 2022. 20 7 United States District kudge 23 24 25 26 27 28