Flowers 125290 v. Shinn

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Eulandas J Flowers, No. CV-22-01206-PHX-JAT 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 David Shinn, et al., 13 Respondents. [14] 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2254. On October 23, 2023, the Magistrate Judge to whom this 17 case was assigned, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this 18 Court deny all relief. (Doc. 21). 19 The first copy of the R&R sent to Petitioner was returned. On October 24, 2023, 20 the Clerk’s office resent the R&R to the new location. Over two months have passed and 21 Petitioner has neither objected to the R&R nor updated his address. 22 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 23 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). It is “clear that 24 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 25 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 26 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 27 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 28 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not □□ otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 2 || 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the || [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are not required to conduct “any review at all .. . of any issue that is not the subject of an 5 || objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. 6|| § 636(b)(1) (‘the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”’).! 8 No objection having been filed, 9 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) is accepted and || adopted. Relief on the Petition is denied, with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall 11 || enter judgment accordingly. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is denied. 13 Dated this 4th day of January, 2024. [16] 1 James A. Teilborg 7 Senior United States District Judge [23] 24| 1 The Court notes that the Notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules appear to suggest a clear error standard of review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 72(b), Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1983 citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 (The court “need 26 only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The court in Campbell, however, appears to delineate a standard of 27) review Specific to magistrate judge findings in the motion to suppress context. See Campbell, 501 F.2d at 206—207. Because this case is not within this limited context, this Court follows the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Reyna-Tapia on the standard of review. _2-