Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02154/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02154-1/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

Victor Teresa-Molina,

Petitioner,

v. 

Frank Strada, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-02154-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5) to which Respondents filed a Limited 

Answer (Doc. 11). Following a thorough and comprehensive analysis, Magistrate Judge

Burns recommended denial of and dismissal with prejudice of the Petition. (Doc. 12). 

Judge Burns advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and 

that the failure to timely do so “may result in the acceptance of the Report and 

Recommendation by the district court without further review. (Doc. 12 at 8) (citing 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). Petitioner 

has not filed an objection and the time to do so has expired. Respondents have also not 

filed an objection. Absent any objections, the Court is not required to review the findings 

and recommendations in the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (noting 

that the relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), “does 

not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 

objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district 

Case 2:19-cv-02154-DJH Document 13 Filed 01/14/20 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

judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 

properly objected to.”).

Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed Judge Burns’s comprehensive and wellreasoned R&R and agrees with its findings and recommendations. The Court will, 

therefore, accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge 

of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns’s R&R (Doc. 12) is accepted and 

adopted as the order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5) is denied and dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis

on appeal are denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural 

bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action 

and enter judgment accordingly.

Dated this 14th day of January, 2020.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-02154-DJH Document 13 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 2