Cervantes v. Shinn

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 13, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02131
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Cosme Castillo Cervantes, No. CV-22-02131-PHX-DWL

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 David Shinn, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 17 the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 16). The R&R, which was issued on September 18 22, 2023, recommended that the petition be dismissed with prejudice and further provided 19 that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 20 recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 16 21 at 12.) 22 Here, no such objections have been filed and the time to file objections has expired.1 23 Thus, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 24 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district 25 court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other 26 standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. 27 1 Following the issuance of the R&R, Petitioner filed a motion for an evidentiary 28 hearing (Doc. 17), but that filing—which the Court since denied (Doc. 18)—did not contain any objections to the R&R or indeed any reasoned argument on any topic. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s □□ report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna- 3|| Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (‘[T]he district judge must review the 4|| magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.’’). 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 16) is accepted, 8 || that the Petition (Doc. 1) is dismissed with prejudice, and that the Clerk of Court shall enter || judgment accordingly. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to 11 || proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because petitioner has not made a || substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and because the dismissal of the 13 | petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 15 Dated this 13th day of October, 2023. 16 17 Lm 18 f CC —— Dominic W. Lanza 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-