Filed: Jul. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 16, 2019
Summary: ORDER DOMINIC W. LANZA , District Judge . Pending before the Court are Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Doc. 1), Motion to Preliminarily Enjoin Respondents from Executing the Detainer in Violation of Law (Doc. 4), and the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the United States Magistrate Judge, recommending the denial of the petition and the motion (Doc. 16). The R&R, which was issued on June 18, 2019, provided that "[t]he parties shall have fourt
Summary: ORDER DOMINIC W. LANZA , District Judge . Pending before the Court are Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Doc. 1), Motion to Preliminarily Enjoin Respondents from Executing the Detainer in Violation of Law (Doc. 4), and the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the United States Magistrate Judge, recommending the denial of the petition and the motion (Doc. 16). The R&R, which was issued on June 18, 2019, provided that "[t]he parties shall have fourte..
More
ORDER
DOMINIC W. LANZA, District Judge.
Pending before the Court are Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), Motion to Preliminarily Enjoin Respondents from Executing the Detainer in Violation of Law (Doc. 4), and the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the United States Magistrate Judge, recommending the denial of the petition and the motion (Doc. 16). The R&R, which was issued on June 18, 2019, provided that "[t]he parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court." (Doc. 16 at 15.)
Here, no such objections have been filed. Indeed, Petitioner filed a notice that he does not intend to file objections. (Doc. 19.) Thus, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) ("[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation unless objections are filed."). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1221 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.").
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 16) is accepted and adopted, that the Petition (Doc. 1) is denied with prejudice, that the Motion to Preliminarily Enjoin Respondents from Executing the Detainer in Violation of Law (Doc. 4) is denied with prejudice, and that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and because the dismissal of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.
