Jones v. Shinn

Filing 12

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Morrissey's R&R (Doc. 11 ) is ACCEPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners' petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5 ) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJU DICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and terminate the case. (See Order for full details.) Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 4/27/21. (SST)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Charles Jones,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-20-01220-PHX-DLR

David Shinn, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15
16

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey’s Report

17

and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 11), which recommends that Petitioners’ petition for

18

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5) be denied and dismissed with

19

prejudice and that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

20

appeal be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to

21

file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a

22

waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

23

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Neither party filed objections, which relieves the Court

24

of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn,

25

474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . .

26

of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district

27

judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been

28

properly objected to.”). “Unless this court has definite and firm conviction that the

1

[Magistrate Judge] committed a clear error of judgment, [this court] will not disturb [the]

2

decision.” Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation

3

omitted).

4

The Court has nonetheless independently reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-

5

taken. The Court therefore will accept the R&R in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

6

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

7

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The

8

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further

9

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

10
11

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Morrissey’s R&R (Doc. 11) is
ACCEPTED.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition for writ of habeas corpus

13

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH

14

PREJUDICE.

15
16
17
18
19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment
and terminate the case.
Dated this 27th day of April, 2021.

20
21
22
23
24

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

-2-