Mopecha 353472 v. Romo

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02663
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Taboh Mopecha, No. CV-24-02663-PHX-JAT

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Unknown Romo, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The 16 Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report and Recommendation 17 (“R&R”) recommending that the Petition be denied. (Doc. 15). In summary the R&R 18 concludes: “Each of the Petition’s claims is procedurally defaulted without excuse. In 19 addition, Ground Seven of the Petition is non-cognizable in these proceedings for failure 20 to assert a federal claim. Therefore, it is recommended that the Petition be dismissed with 21 prejudice without an evidentiary hearing….” (Id. at 16). 22 Neither party has objected to the R&R and the time for filing objections has run. 23 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 24 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 25 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 26 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 27 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 28 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that || de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 2|| 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 4|| [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are 5 || 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. 7\| § 636(b)(1) (‘the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report 8 || and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).! 9 There being no objections, 10 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 15) is accepted. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition in this case is dismissed, with 12 || prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 13 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 14]| Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a 15 || certificate of appealability because dismissal of the petition is based on a plain procedural 16]| 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 16th day of May, 2025. 19 20 21 James A. Teilborg 22 Senior United States District Judge 23 24 ' The Court notes that the Notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules suggest a clear error 25|| standard of review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1983 citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 26|| 206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 (The court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”’). The court in Campbell, however, appears to delineate a standard of review specitic to magistrate jiadse indings in the motion to suppress context. See Campbell, 501 F.2d at || 206-207. Because this case is not within this limited context, this Court follows Thomas, 474 U.S. at 140 (1985). Accord Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

_2-