Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-00813/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-00813-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alfred Erik Caraffa,

Petitioner,

v. 

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-22-00813-PHX-MTL

ORDER 

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Deborah 

M. Fine (“R & R”) (Doc. 85) recommending that the Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 36) be dismissed with prejudice, that Petitioner’s 

various motions be denied, that his notices be stricken from the docket, and that a certificate 

of appealability be denied. 

On August 15, 2023, the Court had entered an order providing Petitioner with extra 

time to file any objections—up to and including September 15, 2023. (Doc. 88.) This order 

was mailed to Petitioner on August 15, 2023. Petitioner has not filed any objections to the 

R & R. And now, the deadline to do so has passed.

In reviewing an R & R, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de 

novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 

Case 2:22-cv-00813-MTL Document 92 Filed 09/29/23 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

149 (1985) (finding that the District Court need not conduct “any review at all . . . of any 

issue that is not the subject of an objection”). 

No objections having been received, the Court will accept and adopt the R & R in 

its entirety.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 85) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 36) be dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s pending motions, including 

“Violation of Constitutional Statute by the Court” (Doc. 58), “Motion of Default Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 55(a)” (Doc. 66), motions for recusal (Docs. 68, 82), and 

“Notice of Revoked Motion of Default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedures Rule 55(a) 

Default” (Doc. 73), are denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall strike Petitioner’s 

notices (Docs. 78, 79, 84).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (Doc. 81) is denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the issuance of a certificate of appealability 

and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because Petitioner has not demonstrated 

that reasonable jurists could find the ruling debatable or conclude that the issues presented 

are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 327 (2003).

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close 

this case.

Dated this 28th day of September, 2023.

Case 2:22-cv-00813-MTL Document 92 Filed 09/29/23 Page 2 of 2