Opinion
CV-23-02017-PHX-DLR (JFM)
06-21-2024
Javier Flores, Jr., Petitioner, v. Lawrence M Wharton, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
DOUGLAS L. RAYES, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On May 6, 2024, Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed. (Doc. 28.) The R&R advised Petitioner that he had fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of the R&R to file written objections with the Court. Additionally, Petitioner requested, and the Court granted, an extension for filing objections until June 5, 2024. (Doc. 31.) Petitioner did not file an objection, but he filed two supplements to the record. (Docs. 32 and 33.) The Court finds that the supplements are not “specific written objections” as contemplated by Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings.
Neither party filed objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; 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.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and agrees with Magistrate Metcalf's recommendations. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition. 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”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Metcalf's R&R (Doc. 28) is ACCEPTED, Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 9) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED, and Petitioner may not proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case.