Hollingsworth v. Ryan et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Magistrate Judge's 22 Report and Recommendation is accepted; Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is denied and dismissed with prejudice; in the event Petitioner files an appea l, 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; the Clerk shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 11/23/16. (REW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Leslie Hollingsworth, Jr.,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-00080-PHX-JAT

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

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

16

(“Petition”). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc.

17

22) 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

22) is ACCEPTED; accordingly,

1

$

2
3

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed
with prejudice,

$

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

4

appealability is denied because denial of the petition is based on a plain

5

procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find this Court’s procedural

6

ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), and

7

$

8

Dated this 23rd day of November, 2016.

the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice.

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

-2-