Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-00182/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-00182-1/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 

German Solis-Antonio,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Ryan Thornell, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-24-00182-PHX-MTL

ORDER 

 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge 

Camille D. Bibles, recommending that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be 

denied along with a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 12.) 

Petitioner was given fourteen days from the date of service of the R&R to file 

specific written objections with the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The R&R was emailed to Petitioner on November 26, 2024. No objections have been 

received. Therefore, the Court will accept and adopt the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct “any review 

at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”; see also United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining the “statute makes 

it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise”) (emphasis in original).

 . . . . 

 . . . . 

Case 2:24-cv-00182-MTL Document 13 Filed 12/20/24 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 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) is accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) 

is denied. 

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 Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 

F.4th 1038, 1046-47 n.1 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 

(2003)); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). 

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

accordingly and close this case. 

 Dated this 20th day of December, 2024. 

Case 2:24-cv-00182-MTL Document 13 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 2