Williams v. Arizona, State of

Opinion

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

9 Berry Williams, No. CV-21-01225-PHX-GMS (JFM)

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 State of Arizona, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate 16 Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc. 15) issued February 4, 2022, regarding petitioner’s Amended 17 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 6). The R&R 18 recommends that the Amended Petition be dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge 19 advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 4 20 (citing Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings; United States v. Reyna- 21 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 22 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). No objections were filed. 23 Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the 24 Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. 25 R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 26 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any 27 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a 28 timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the 1 | rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a 3 | copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not 4) timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 6 Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Amended 8 | Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or 9| modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate’). 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the 11 | Magistrate Judge (Doc. 15) is accepted. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment 13 | dismissing petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 14] U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 6) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 15 The request for a certificate of appealability (Doc. 13 at 9) is denied because appellant has not shown that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition 17 | states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 18 | find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 20| 1328S. Ct. 641, 648 (2012); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). 21 Dated this 16th day of March, 2022. 22 Wi 23 A Whacrsay Sooo) 74 Chief United states District Judge 25 26 27 28

_2-