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

D. Arizona

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

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided November 20, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-01064·Unknown

Opinion

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

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

Ryan Thornell, et al.,

Respondents. Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 15). The R&R, which was issued on October 28, 2025, recommends that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice and further provides that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 15 at 39.) Here, no such objections have been filed and the 14-day deadline has expired. Thus, the Court adopts the R&R. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are 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 de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”’). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 15) is accepted, that the Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a 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 } debatable. Dated this 20th day of November, 2025. Lm ee” Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

Ryan Thornell, et al.,

Respondents. Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 15). The R&R, which was issued on October 28, 2025, recommends that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice and further provides that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 15 at 39.) Here, no such objections have been filed and the 14-day deadline has expired. Thus, the Court adopts the R&R. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are 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 de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”’). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 15) is accepted, that the Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a 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 } debatable. Dated this 20th day of November, 2025. Lm ee” Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge

_2-

Willie James McElroy, Jr v. Ryan Thornell, et al., (D. Ariz. 2025).

Pincite

Willie James McElroy, Jr v. Ryan Thornell, et al. (Willie James McElroy, Jr v. Ryan Thornell, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related