Lopez v. Shinn

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: March 27, 2025
• Docket: 4:22-cv-00401
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Xavier Luis Lopez, No. CV-22-00401-TUC-JAS

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 David Shinn, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States 16 Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera recommending this Court deny and dismiss with 17 prejudice Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2254 (Doc. 13). A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed any 19 objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has expired. 20 The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Parties have 22 fourteen days from the service of a copy of the Magistrate Judge's recommendation within 23 which to file written objections to the Court. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. It is "clear that the 24 district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if 25 objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 26 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). If no objection is made, "the court need only satisfy itself that 27 there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation" of 28 a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 addition (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). 2 The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Aguilera's || recommendations are not clearly erroneous, and they are adopted. See 28 U.S.C. § 4|| 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. || 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 6 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability mustissue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). Section 2253(c)(2) provides 8 || that a certificate may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 9|| denial of a constitutional right." In the certificate, the court must indicate which specific || issues satisfy this showing. 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). A substantial showing is made when 11 || the resolution of an issue is debatable among reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the 12 || issues differently, or if the issue deserves further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review of the record considering the standards for granting 14]| a certificate of appealability, the Court concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the 15 || resolution of the petition is not debatable among reasonable jurists and does not deserve 16|| further proceedings. 17 18 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 19 (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is accepted and adopted; 0 (2) Plaintiff's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice; 99 (3) A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue; and 53 (4) The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close 54 the file in this case. 35 Dated this 26th day of March, 2025.

26 \ ___ ¢ 27 Honorable James A. Soto 28 United States District Judge

_2-