Dino Joseph Bennetti v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

D. Arizona

Dino Joseph Bennetti v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided March 10, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-00169·Unknown

Opinion

Dino Joseph Bennetti, No. CV-25-00169-PHX-DWL

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

Ryan Thornell, et al.,

Respondents. Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 34). The R&R, which was issued on February 17, 2026, recommends that the petition be dismissed with prejudice and further provides that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 34 at 28.) Here, no such objections have been filed and the 14-day deadline has expired. Thus, the Court adopts the R&R. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. 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-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 1 (‘[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 34) is accepted, that the Petition (Doc. 1) is dismissed with prejudice, and that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and because dismissal is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling } debatable. Dated this 9th day of March, 2026. Lom ee” Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dino Joseph Bennetti, No. CV-25-00169-PHX-DWL

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

Ryan Thornell, et al.,

Respondents. Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 34). The R&R, which was issued on February 17, 2026, recommends that the petition be dismissed with prejudice and further provides that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 34 at 28.) Here, no such objections have been filed and the 14-day deadline has expired. Thus, the Court adopts the R&R. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. 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-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 1 (‘[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 34) is accepted, that the Petition (Doc. 1) is dismissed with prejudice, and that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and because dismissal is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling } debatable. Dated this 9th day of March, 2026. Lom ee” Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge

-2-

Dino Joseph Bennetti v. Ryan Thornell, et al., (D. Ariz. 2026).

Pincite

Dino Joseph Bennetti v. Ryan Thornell, et al. (Dino Joseph Bennetti v. Ryan Thornell, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related