Palomino-Cruz v. Tracy

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns' R&R, (Doc. 16 ), is ACCEPTED. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. 1 ), is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERE D 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this case. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 5/6/16. (KGM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Saul Armando Palomino-Cruz,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-15-01851-PHX-DLR

Kathy Tracy,

13

Respondent.

14
15
16

Before the Court are Petitioner Saul Armando Palomino-Cruz’s Petition for Writ

17

of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and

18

Recommendation (“R&R”). (Docs. 1, 16.) The R&R recommends that the Court deny

19

the Petition. (Doc. 16 at 5.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had

20

fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could

21

be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. (Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ.

22

P. 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). Petitioner did

23

not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See

24

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section

25

636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of

26

an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any

27

part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The Court

28

has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept

1

the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court

2

“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

3

made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject,

4

or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to

5

the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

6

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns’ R&R, (Doc. 16), is ACCEPTED.

7

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. 1), is DENIED and DISMISSED

8

WITH PREJUDICE.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to

10

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because Petitioner has not made a

11

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

12
13
14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this
case.
Dated this 6th day of May, 2016.

15
16
17
18
19

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-