John Joseph Sidor v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-08141
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 John Joseph Sidor, No. CV-25-08141-PCT-DWL

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Ryan Thornell, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 This is a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 24, 2025, 16 Magistrate Judge Fine issued a 33-page report and recommendation (“R&R”) concluding 17 that Petitioner’s habeas petition should be dismissed and denied with prejudice. (Doc. 13.) 18 Afterward, Petitioner filed an objection to the R&R (Doc. 14) and Respondents filed a 19 response (Doc. 15). 20 Petitioner’s objections implicate 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides that when, 21 as here, a magistrate judge has issued an R&R regarding a dispositive matter and a party 22 has thereafter filed timely written objections, “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo 23 determination of those portions of the [R&R] or specified proposed findings or 24 recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or 25 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 26 The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge 27 with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)-(3). As the 28 Ninth Circuit has explained, “[i]n providing for a de novo determination . . . Congress 1 intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial 2 discretion, chose to place on a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations. . . . 3 [D]istrict courts conduct proper de novo review where they state they have done so, even 4 if the order fails to specifically address a party’s objections.” United States v. Ramos, 65 5 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). See also id. at 434 (“[T]he district court ha[s] 6 no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection.”). Additionally, district 7 courts are not required to review any portion of an R&R to which no specific objection has 8 been made. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear 9 that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal 10 conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those 11 findings.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he 12 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo 13 if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Thus, district judges need not review an 14 objection to an R&R that is general and non-specific. See, e.g., Warling v. Ryan, 2013 WL 15 5276367, *2 (D. Ariz. 2013) (“Because de novo review of an entire R & R would defeat 16 the efficiencies intended by Congress, a general objection ‘has the same effect as would a 17 failure to object.’”) (citations omitted). 18 Here, even though there is a colorable argument that Petitioner’s objections are 19 insufficient to trigger any need for further review—they essentially restate arguments that 20 Petitioner previously raised and do not purport to identify specific errors in the R&R’s 21 analysis regarding Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), and regarding exhaustion and 22 procedural default—the Court has, in an abundance of caution, performed a de novo review 23 of the R&R and fully agrees with its analysis and conclusions. 24 … 25 …. 26 … 27 … 28 … 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. The R&R (Doc. 13) is adopted. 4 2. Petitioner’s objections (Doc. 14) are overruled. 5 3. The petition (Doc. 1) is dismissed and denied with prejudice. 6 4. 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 8 || constitutional right and because the denial of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 10 5. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. 11 Dated this 25th day of November, 2025. 12 13 Lm ee” 14 f t _o———— Dominic W. Lanza 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-