Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-01681/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-01681-1/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

David S Paulson,

Petitioner,

v. 

Ryan Thornell, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-24-01681-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The 

Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”) recommending that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice because it is barred 

by the statute of limitations. (Doc. 13). Neither party has objected to the R&R and the 

time for filing objections has run.

This 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). It is “clear that 

the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings 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); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 

F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 

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 

1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the 

Case 2:24-cv-01681-JAT Document 14 Filed 12/31/24 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

[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 

objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report 

and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).1

There being no objections,

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 13) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition in this case is dismissed, with 

prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a 

certificate of appealability because dismissal of the Petition is based on a plain procedural 

bar and jurists of reason would not find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack 

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Dated this 31st day of December, 2024.

1 The Court notes that the Notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules suggest a clear error 

standard of review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 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 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 Thomas, 

474 U.S. at 140 (1985). Accord Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

Case 2:24-cv-01681-JAT Document 14 Filed 12/31/24 Page 2 of 2