Sinkevitch 336546 v. Thornell

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 25, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00167
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Kathryn Sinkevitch, No. CV-24-00167-PHX-SHD

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Ryan Thornell, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 16 Corpus (Doc. 7). The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report 17 and 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. 13.) Neither party has objected to the R&R and the time for filing objections 20 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 that 27 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) ([T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the || [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”’). 7 There being no objections, 8 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 13) is accepted. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition in this case is denied and 10 || dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 11 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 12 || Section 2254 Cases and Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, in the event 13 || Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a certificate of appealability because dismissal of the petition is based on a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not 15} find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 17 Dated this 25th day of June, 2025. / 18 2 / 19 20 H le Sharad H. Desai 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-