Dumont 324136 v. Thornell

Opinion

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

9 Gina Jeannette Dumont, No. CV-22-08192-PCT-JAT

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et al., 13 14 Respondents. 15 On August 6, 2024, a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) was issued in this case. 16 In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court deny relief on Petitioner’s 17 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 18 On August 29, 2024, this Court extended Petitioner’s time to file objections to the 19 R&R to October 3, 2024. The August 29, 2024 Order was returned as undeliverable 20 because Petitioner, who is no longer in custody, has not kept her address current with this 21 Court as required by the Order of January 6, 2023. (Doc. 5 at 2). 22 Petitioner failed to file objections to the R&R by the October 3, 2024 deadline. As 23 the Court warned in the January 6, 2023 Order, failure to have a current address may result 24 in dismissal of the case. 25 More specifically, “… the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings 26 and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. 27 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); 28 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna- □□ Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if 2|| objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. □□ Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review 4|| de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties 5 || object.”). District courts are not required to conduct “any review at all... of any issue that || is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis 7\| added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of 8 || those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.’’).! 9 There being no objections, the Court will adopt the R&R and deny relief in this case. || Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 49) is accepted. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition in this case is denied and dismissed, 13 || with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 14 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 15 || Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a certificate of appealability because dismissal of portions of the petition is based on a plain || procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable, see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), and Petitioner has not made a substantial || showing of the denial of a constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 20 Dated this 11th day of October, 2024. 21

23 James A. Teilvorg Senior United States District Judge ' The Court notes that the Notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules suggest a clear error standard of review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1983 citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 190, 206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 (The court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The court in Campbell, however, appears to delineate a standard of review specitic to magistrate judge indings in the motion to Suppress context. See Campbell, 501 F.2d at | 206-207. Because this case is not within this limited context, this Court follows Thomas, 474 USS. at 140 (1985). Accord Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

_2-