Opinion
CV-21-01300-PHX-DLR
02-23-2024
Cameron Leezell Taylor, Petitioner, v. David Shinn, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge
Before the Court is Petitioner Cameron Leezall Taylor's Amended Petition and Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 58, 59), Petitioner's Motion to Stay (Doc. 78), and United States Magistrate Judge Morrissey's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 86). The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the amended petition with prejudice, and deny the motion to stay. 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. 86) is ACCEPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner's amended petition (Doc. 58) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner's Motion to Stay (Doc. 78) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal of the amended Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case.