Opinion
CV-19-00545-TUC-JCH
03-10-2022
George Benjamin Larin, Petitioner, v. David Shinn, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
Honorable John C. Hinderaker, United States District Judge.
On November 19, 2019, pro se Petitioner George Benjamin Larin (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera. (Doc. 2.) On February 11, 2022, Judge Aguilera issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court dismiss the petition for the following reasons: claims (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are procedurally defaulted without excuse; claim (a) does not overcome deference- governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)-as to the state court's decision; and all claims fail under de novo review. (See generally Doc. 24.)
The R&R advised the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. No. objections have been filed within the time provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2).
After an independent review, the Courts finds it appropriate to adopt the R&R in full and dismiss the Petition. Accordingly,
1. IT IS ORDERED ADOPTING IN FULL the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24).
2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1). The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in this matter.
3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists could not “debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal citation and quotation omitted).