Rodriguez v. Shinn

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 11, 2020
• Docket: 2:18-cv-01273
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Federico Rodriguez, No. CV-18-01273-PHX-RM

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 On April 22, 2020, Magistrate Judge Lynette C. Kimmins issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (Doc. 23) recommending that this Court enter an order dismissing 17 Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) as untimely. No objections to 18 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 error in Judge Kimmins’s Report and □□ Recommendation. 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) is accepted and adopted in full. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 9|| Corpus (Doc. 17) is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 10 || accordingly and close this case. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing || Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, because 13} reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 484 (2000). 15 Dated this 10th day of June, 2020. 16 17 8 phil 19 a) Z Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ 20 United States District □□□□□ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-