Opinion
CV-22-00447-PHX-MTL
05-24-2023
Roberto Lizardi, Jr, Petitioner, v. David Shinn, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (“R & R”) (Doc. 14) recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be dismissed with prejudice, and that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied. Petitioner has not filed any objections to the R & R.
In reviewing an R & R, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that the District Court need not conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”). No objections having been received, the Court will accept and adopt the R & R in its entirety. ... ...
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the issuance of a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists could find the ruling debatable or conclude that the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, terminating this case.