Maguire v. Shinn

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 25, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01725
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Wood Anthony Maguire, No. CV-21-01725-PHX-DWL

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 David Shinn, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Amended Report and Recommendation 17 (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 10). The R&R, which was issued 18 on June 10, 2022, recommended that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice 19 and further provided that “[t]he parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a 20 copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections 21 with the Court.” (Doc. 10 at 20-21.) Petitioner later sought and received an extension of 22 the objection deadline to July 15, 2022. (Docs. 11, 12.) However, that deadline has now 23 expired and no objections have been filed. 24 Thus, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas 25 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require 26 district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any 27 other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 28 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s 1 || report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna- 2|| Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 4|| otherwise.”). 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 10) is accepted, that the Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that the Clerk of 8 || Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because petitioner has not made a 11 |} substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and because the dismissal of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the 13 || procedural ruling debatable. 14 Dated this 22nd day of July, 2022. 15 16 Lm 17 f CC —— Dominic W. Lanza 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-