Burgess v. Shinn

Opinion

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

Buren J arrett Burgess, ) No. CV-22-08050-PCT-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Petitioner, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) David Shinn, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Respondents. ) ) 14 )

15 Petitioner Buren Jarrett Burgess has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Honorable Eileen S. Willett, United States 17 Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 14), 18 recommending that the Court deny Count One and dismiss Count Two of the Petition. 19 Judge Willett advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the 20 R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to 21 obtain review of the R&R. (Doc. 14 at 17) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 22 72; United States v. Reyna-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 Eileen S. Willett’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8 | 14) 1s accepted and adopted by the Court; 9 2. That Ground One of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 10| U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is denied and Count Two is 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 19th day of September, 2022. 15

7 United States District kadge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28