Opinion
CV-14-00409-PHX-GMS (MHB)
01-05-2023
Stephen Edward May, Petitioner, v. David Shinn, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
G. MURRAY SNOW, CHIEF, DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns (Doc. 112) issued November 14, 2022, regarding Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (Doc. 105), Respondents' Response (Doc. 108) and Petitioner's Reply (Doc. 111). The R&R recommends that the Motion be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 7 citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). No objections were filed.
Because the parties did not file objections, the Court need not review any of the Magistrate Judge's determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) (“A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy [of the magistrate's order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).
Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and deny the Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 105). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 112) is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 105).
Any request for a certificate of appealability is denied because appellant has not shown that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S.Ct. 641, 648 (2012); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).