Bolivar 325679 v. Thornell

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

9 Ruben Bolivar, No. CV-24-00271-TUC-AMM

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Ryan Thornell, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 On April 18, 2025, Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court deny Petitioner Ruben Bolivar’s 17 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody and dismiss this case 18 with prejudice. (Doc. 20.) The Magistrate Judge notified the parties they had fourteen 19 (14) days to file any written objections to the proposed findings and recommendation. 20 (Id. at 19.) Neither party filed an objection, and the time to do so has now passed. 21 A district court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is 22 not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 23 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those 24 portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 25 objection is made.”). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on 26 the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 27 Advisory Committee Notes 1983 Addition. 28 /// 1 The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 20), the Petition for 2|| Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), Response (Doc. 10), Amended Petition for Writ of || Habeas Corpus (Doc. 17), Supplemental Response (Doc. 18), and Reply (Doc. 19). The Court finds no clear error and accepts the recommendation. 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 7\| 20.) 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Doc. 17.) The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 13 || Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 484 (2000). 16 Dated this 16th day of May, 2025. 17 18 bw 2. Ywucte 19 Honorable Angela M. Martinez 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-