Paxton v. Ryan et al

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. It is ordered that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 23 is ACCEPTED. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is denied and dismissed with prejudice. In the event P etitioner files an appeal, issuance of a certificate of appealability is denied because denial of the petition is based on a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find this Court's procedural ruling debatable. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 8/14/2015. (ACL)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Bryan Kelly Paxton,

No. CV-14-00197-PHX-JAT
Petitioner,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

16

(“Petition”) (Doc. 1).

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

17

(“R&R”) (Doc. 23) recommending that the Petition be denied.

18

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby

19

accepts the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district

20

courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the

21

subject of an objection” (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

22

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review

23

the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but

24

not otherwise” (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d

25

1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

26

Based on the foregoing,

27

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.

28

23) is ACCEPTED; accordingly,

1
2

 Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed
with prejudice,

3

 in the event Petitioner files an appeal, issuance of a certificate of appealability is

4

denied because denial of the petition is based on a plain procedural bar and jurists

5

of reason would not find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v.

6

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), and

7
8

 the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice.
Dated this 14th day of August, 2015.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-