Dillon v. Arizona, State of

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: March 7, 2024
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00290
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

Kristop her Ivon A. Dillon, ) No. CV 21-0290-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Petitioner, ) ORDER v. ) ) 11 ) State of Arizona, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Respondents. ) ) 14 )

15 The Court has before it, Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 7), the Limited Answer from the Respondents, (Doc. 17 27), Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (Doc. 31), the Response to the Motion to Withdraw 18 as Attorney (Doc. 33), and the Reply from the Petitioner. (Doc. 37) Additionally, the 19 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 47), and the Petitioner’s 20 Objections, (Doc. 52) have also been considered, along with the Respondent’s Reply to the 21 Petitioner Objections. (Doc.53) 22 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 23 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a 24 timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R 25 that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires 26 specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United 27 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It 28 follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific 1 objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 2 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial 3 economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or 4 arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s 5 decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 6 (9th Cir. 2000). 7 The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently 8 developed record. The Petitioner’s objections to the findings and recommendations have 9 also been thoroughly considered. 10 After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches 11 the same conclusions reached by the magistrate judge. The R&R will be adopted in full. 12 Accordingly, 13 IT IS ORDERED: 14 1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 47) is 15 accepted and adopted by the Court. 16 2. That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 52) are overruled. 17 3. That the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (Doc. 31) is granted. 18 4. That the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 7) is denied, 19 and this action is dismissed with prejudice. 20 5. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis 21 on appeal are denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural 22 bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable; and 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 6. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment according and terminate this action. 3 Dated this 7th day of March 2024. 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