Bodney 130538 v. Shinn

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5

9 William Lamonte Bodney, No. CV-20-00373-TUC-CKJ

10 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 v.

12 David Shinn, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 16 On September 14, 2021, Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman issued a Report and 17 Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 25) in which she recommended that the Court deny 18 William Lamonte Bodney’s Petition Under 18 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1). The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that 20 written objections to the recommendation were to be filed within fourteen days of service 21 of a copy of the R&R under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Id. at 15. As of the date of this Order, no 22 objections have been filed. 24 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 25 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party makes a 26 timely objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation, then the Court is required to 27 “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to 28 which objection is made.” Id. § 636(b)(1). The statute does not “require[ ] some lesser 1 review by the [Court] when no objections are filed.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 2 (1985). Rather, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that 3 is not the subject of an objection.” Id. at 149. 4 The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reiterated that a district 5 court is not required to review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation where no 6 objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 7 Cir. 2003) (“[T]o the extent de novo review is required to satisfy Article III concerns, it 8 need not be exercised unless requested by the parties”). In other words, if there is no 9 objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation, then this Court may accept the 10 recommendation without review. 11 Petitioner has failed to file an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. While 12 Petitioner has not filed an objection, the Court has independently reviewed the R&R and 13 adopts the recommended findings and conclusions. The Court will accept the R&R and 14 dismiss the Petition. 15 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (“COA”) 16 Before Petitioner can appeal the Court’s judgment, a certificate of 17 appealability (COA) must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1); Rule 18 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“The district court must issue or deny a 19 certification of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.”) Under 20 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only if the petitioner “has made a substantial 21 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” The certificate must indicate which 22 specific issue or issues satisfy this showing. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). With respect to 23 claims rejected on the merits, a petitioner “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would 24 find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack 25 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). For procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if 26 reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 27 constitutional right and the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Id. 28 Upon review of the record, and in light of the aforementioned standards, the Court 1 || concludes that a certificate shall not issue, as the resolution of the petition on its merits is 2|| not debatable among reasonable jurists. Any future request for a COA must be addressed || to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 4 5 IT IS ORDERED: 6 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) is ADOPTED. 7 2. The Petition Under 18 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in 8 State Custody (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. 9 3. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue in this case. 10 4. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 11 12 Dated this 11th day of January, 2022. 13 Cie Lo Ages 15 Honorable Cin . J6fgenson United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-