Willie James McElroy, Jr v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01064
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Willie James McElroy, Jr, No. CV-25-01064-PHX-DWL

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Ryan Thornell, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 17 the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 15). The R&R, which was issued on October 28, 18 2025, recommends that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice and further 19 provides that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of 20 this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 21 15 at 39.) 22 Here, no such objections have been filed and the 14-day deadline has expired. Thus, 23 the Court adopts the R&R. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does 24 not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual 25 or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to 26 those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o 27 review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are 28 filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (‘[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 2|| de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”’). 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 15) is accepted, 5 || that the Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that the Clerk of 6 || Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to 8 || proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a 9|| substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and because dismissal is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling 11 |} debatable. 12 Dated this 20th day of November, 2025. 13 14 Lm ee” Dominic W. Lanza 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-