Brown 281275 v. Thornell

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 18, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02492
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

Domin ique Dishawn Brown, ) No. CV-24-02492-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Petitioner, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) Ryan Thornell, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Respondents. ) ) 14 )

15 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 16 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), the Limited Answer from Respondents (Doc. 12), and Petitioner’s 17 Reply (Doc. 13). Additionally, the Court has also considered the Report and 18 Recommendation (“R&R”) from the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 14), Petitioner’s Objections 19 (Doc. 15), Respondents’ Response (Doc. 16), and Petitioner’s Reply (Doc. 17).1 20 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a 22 timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R 23 that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires 24 specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United

25 1 Petitioner filed a reply to Respondents’ response to Petitioner’s objections. (Doc. 26 17). A reply is not permitted under the Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7, 72(b)(2); LRCiv. P. 7.2. Respondents moved to strike Petitioner’s reply because it is any impermissible sur- 27 reply. (Doc. 18). Although Respondents are correct that a sur-reply is not procedurally permitted, the Court nonetheless considered the sur-reply and finds that it does not change 28 the outcome of this case. As a result, the motion to strike will be denied. 1 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It 2 follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific 3 objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 4 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial 5 economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or 6 arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s 7 decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 8 (9th Cir. 2000). 9 The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently 10 developed record. The Petitioner’s objections to the findings and recommendations have 11 also been thoroughly considered. 12 After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches 13 the same conclusions reached by the magistrate judge. The R&R will be adopted in full. 14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS ORDERED: 16 1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is 17 accepted and adopted by the Court; 18 2. That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 15) are overruled; 19 3. That the Motion to Strike (Doc. 18) is denied; 20 4. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied, and this 21 action is dismissed with prejudice; 22 5. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis 23 on appeal are denied because reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable and 24 Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right; and 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 6. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment according and terminate this action. 3 Dated this 18th day of April, 2025. 4

6 United States District kadge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28