Opinion
CV-21-08187-PCT-JAT
03-02-2022
Jerald Jackson, Petitioner, v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On November 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this case be denied. (Doc. 8). This Court granted Petitioner an extension of time through December 23, 2021, to file objections to the R&R. To date, Petitioner has not filed objections to the R&R.
Because neither party has filed objections to the R&R, the Court hereby accepts the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection” (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge's] recommendations to which the parties object.”).
The Court notes that the Notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules appear to suggest a clear error standard of review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), citing Campbell Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES- 1983 citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 (The court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The court in Campbell, however, appears to delineate a standard of review specific to magistrate judge findings in the motion to suppress context. See Campbell, 501 F.2d at 206-207. Because this case is not within this limited context, this Court follows the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Reyna-Tapia on the standard of review.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8) is ACCEPTED; accordingly, • Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed with prejudice, • in the event Petitioner files an appeal, issuance of a certificate of appealability is denied for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, and
• the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice.