Montanez 360986 v. Unknown Party

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 9, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02653
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Manuel R Montanez, No. CV-23-02653-PHX-SHD

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Unknown Party, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 16 Corpus. The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report and 17 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Amended Petition be denied and 18 dismissed with prejudice because Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted without 19 excuse. (Doc. 16). Neither party has objected to the R&R and the time for filing 20 objections has run. 21 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 23 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 24 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 25 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 26 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes 27 that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 28 otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the 2|| [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are || not required to conduct “any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of 6|| the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”). 7 There being no objections, 8 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 16) is accepted. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition in this case is denied and dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 11 || accordingly. 12 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 13 || Section 2254 Cases and Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a certificate of appealability and 15 || leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because dismissal of the petition is based on a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 18 Dated this 9th day of May, 2025. 19 20 / 21 □ / 22 H le Sharad H. Desai 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28

_2-