Contreras v. Ryan et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS ORDERED that the 16 R&R is accepted and adopted, that the 1 Petition 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 be DENIED because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and jurists of reason would not find the Court's assessment of Petitioner's constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 2/1/19. (MSA)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Edgar D Contreras,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-00077-PHX-DWL

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under

16

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United

17

States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 16). The R&R, which was issued on December 27, 2018,

18

recommended that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice and further provided

19

that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this

20

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. . . . Failure

21

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result

22

in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without further

23

review.” (Doc. 16 at 12-13.)

24

Here, no such objections have been filed. Thus, the Court accepts the Magistrate

25

Judge’s recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does

26

not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual

27

or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to

28

those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o

1

review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are

2

filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1221 (9th Cir. 2003)

3

(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations

4

de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

5

Accordingly,

6

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 16) is accepted and adopted, that the Petition

7

(Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that the Clerk of Court shall enter

8

judgment accordingly.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to

10

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

11

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and jurists of reason would not

12

find the Court’s assessment of Petitioner’s constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

13

Dated this 1st day of February, 2019.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-