Felipe Petrone-Cabanas v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

Opinion

Felipe Petrone-Cabanas, No. CV-25-01431-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. § 2254 (Doc. 1), Petitioner’s counsel’s motion to withdraw (Doc. 24), Petitioner’s counsel’s supplemental motion to withdraw (Doc. 30), and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 39). The R&R, which was issued on August 12, 2026, recommends that the petition be denied and that the withdrawal requests be granted 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. 39 at 16-17.) 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 1 filed.”’). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (‘[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: 1. The R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 39) is accepted. 2. The petition (Doc. 1) is denied. 3. Petitioner’s counsel’s motion to withdraw (Doc. 24) is granted. 4. Petitioner’s counsel’s supplemental motion to withdraw (Doc. 30) is granted. 5. Petitioner’s counsel is deemed withdrawn. 6. 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 14] constitutional right and because dismissal is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 7. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. Dated this 31st day of August, 2026. fm ee” Dominic W. Lanza 71 United States District Judge

-2-