1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Robert Carrasco Gamez, Jr., No. CV-22-00197-TUC-RM 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 David Shinn, 13 Respondent. 14 15 On October 17, 2022, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Rateau issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (Doc. 19) recommending that this Court dismiss the Amended Petition 17 filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5) as time-barred and deny the Motion to Stay 18 (Doc. 12). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.1 19 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 20 magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 21 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 22 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 23 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 24 in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 25 advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 26 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the 27 1 The Court notes that, although Petitioner requested an extension of time to file his 28 Reply, which was granted (Doc. 18), Petitioner never filed a Reply. The time for filing objections has expired pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). || district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for 3 || clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation). 4 The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Rateau’s Report and 5|| Recommendation, the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in 6|| Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Rateau’s Report and Recommendation. 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted and adopted in full. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition (Doc. 5) is dismissed |} and the Motion to Stay (Doc. 12) is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter || judgment accordingly and close this case. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, because 15} reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 484 (2000). 17 Dated this 14 day of November, 2022. 18 19 20 phe 7) 21 TD J (fate 7 □ Honorable Rosthary Mafquez 22 United States District □□□□□ 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-