Reyna v. Stolc

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 13, 2020
• Docket: 4:18-cv-00105
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Manuel Armando Reyna, Jr., No. CV-18-00105-TUC-RM

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Bruno Stolc, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 On August 20, 2019, Magistrate Judge Lynette C. Kimmins issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (Doc. 19) recommending that this Court deny Petitioner Manuel 17 Armando Reyna, Jr.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 18 1). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. 19 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 20 magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 21 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 22 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 23 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 24 in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 25 advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 26 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the 27 district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, 28 CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for 1 || clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation). 2 The Court has reviewed Judge Kimmins’s Report and Recommendation, the || parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no clear error in Judge Kimmins’s Report 4|| and Recommendation. Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted || and adopted in full. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied. 8 || The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 10 || Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, because 11 |} reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 484 (2000). 13 Dated this 10th day of January, 2020. 14 15 16 ao y Ue Li 17 NMMONWMEL/, Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ 18 United States District □□□□□□ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-