Hall 353631 v. Arizona, State of

Opinion

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

9 Anthony Charles Hall, No. CV-23-08516-PCT-GMS

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v. and

12 State of Arizona, et al., DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA 13 Respondents. PAUPERIS STATUS 14

16 Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate 17 Judge Deborah M. Fine (Doc. 76) regarding petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of 18 Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5). The R&R recommends that 19 the Amended Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge 20 advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 19 21 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 22 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). No objections were filed. 23 Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the 24 Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. 25 R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 26 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any 27 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a 28 timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A || party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); || Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 6 The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Amended Petition. See 28 U.S.C. 7\| § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 8 || part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate’’). 9 IT IS ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 10 || (Doc.76) is accepted. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying || and dismissing petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 13 || U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 14 A request for a certificate of appealability will be denied because dismissal is 15 || justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling debatable, because Petitioner has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a 17 || constitutional right[,]” and because jurists of reason would not find the Court’s rejection on constitutional grounds of Petitioner’s actual innocence claims to be “debatable or wrong.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 20 Dated this 23rd day of December, 2024. 21 off

23 Senior United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

_2-