Teresa-Molina v. Strada

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 14, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-02154
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Victor Teresa-Molina, No. CV-19-02154-PHX-DJH

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Frank Strada, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 16 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5) to which Respondents filed a Limited 17 Answer (Doc. 11). Following a thorough and comprehensive analysis, Magistrate Judge 18 Burns recommended denial of and dismissal with prejudice of the Petition. (Doc. 12). 19 Judge Burns advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and 20 that the failure to timely do so “may result in the acceptance of the Report and 21 Recommendation by the district court without further review. (Doc. 12 at 8) (citing 22 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). Petitioner 23 has not filed an objection and the time to do so has expired. Respondents have also not 24 filed an objection. Absent any objections, the Court is not required to review the findings 25 and recommendations in the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (noting 26 that the relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), “does 27 not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 28 objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district 1 || judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). 3 Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed Judge Burns’s comprehensive and well- reasoned R&R and agrees with its findings and recommendations. The Court will, 5 || therefore, accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge 6|| of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 7\| recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same). 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns’s R&R (Doc. 12) is accepted and || adopted as the order of this Court. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas || Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 14]| Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis 15 || on appeal are denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural || bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action 18 |} and enter judgment accordingly. 19 Dated this 14th day of January, 2020. 20 21 ip Gur □□ 22 norable’Dian¢g4. Hurletewa 3 United States District Fudge 24 25 26 27 28

_2-