Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_18-cv-08193/USCOURTS-azd-3_18-cv-08193-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Douglas E Fuqua,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-18-08193-PCT-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 6) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 18). The R&R, which was issued on September 

3, 2019, recommended that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice and further 

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. 18 at 15.) 

Here, no such objections have been filed. 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) 

Case 3:18-cv-08193-DWL Document 19 Filed 09/27/19 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

(“[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’s recommended disposition (Doc. 18) is accepted, 

that the Petition (Doc. 6) is denied and dismissed 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.

Dated this 27th day of September, 2019.

Case 3:18-cv-08193-DWL Document 19 Filed 09/27/19 Page 2 of 2