Opinion
CV-20-01811-PHX-JAT
08-30-2021
Mark R Mitchell, Petitioner, v. David Shinn, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
James A. Teilborg, Senior United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 13) recommending that the Petition be denied.
Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, 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).
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is ACCEPTED; accordingly,
• Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (as amended) is denied and dismissed with prejudice,
• in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the R&R's recommendation and reasoning regarding a certificate of appealability (Doc. 13 at 16) is accepted; a certificate of appealability is denied, and
• the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment dismissing the Petition with prejudice.