Opinion
CV-20-08179-PCT-DLR (JZB)
10-29-2021
Michael Owen McKenzie, Petitioner, v. David Shinn, Respondent.
ORDER
DOUGLAS L. RAYES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Petitioner Michael Owen McKenzie's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and United States Magistrate Judge Boyle's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 12). The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the petition with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 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 finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R in its entirety. 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 the R&R (Doc. 12) is ACCEPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner's petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable, and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 14) is DENIED. 2