Nunez v. Maricopa County Attorney ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Frank N unez, ) No. CV-22-01939-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Petitioner, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) Maricopa County Attorney, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Respondents. ) ) 14 ) 15 Petitioner Frank Nunez has filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 4). The Honorable Michael T. Morrissey, United States 17 Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 13), 18 recommending that the Court deny the Amended Petition. Judge Morrissey advised the 19 parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file 20 timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. 21 (Doc. 13 at 6) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna- 22 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 23 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 24 review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 25 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 26 not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 27 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 28 objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will adopt the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating 2| that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 3 | recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge 4) may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED: 7 1. That Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey’s Report and Recommendation 8 | (Doc. 13) is accepted and adopted by the Court; 9 2. That the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 4) is denied and dismissed with prejudice; 11 3. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied; and 13 4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 14 Dated this 30th day of October, 2023. 15 7 United States District kadge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28