Irvin 081704 v. Lee

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 9, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01233
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Leonard Deon Irvin, No. CV-25-01233-PHX-GMS

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Crystal Lee, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 16 Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine (Doc. 9) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 17 Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that 18 the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that 19 they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 20 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 21 Cir. 2003) (en banc)). No objections were filed. 22 Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the 23 Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. 24 R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 25 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any 26 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a 27 timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the 28 rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A 1 || party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a 2|| 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); 4|| Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 5 The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition with prejudice. See 28 6|| U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole || or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). 8 IT IS ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 9) 1s accepted. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 11 |} and dismissing petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 13 The Certificate of Appealability is denied because dismissal is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling debatable. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 16 Dated this 9th day of October, 2025.

19 Senior United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-