Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-01273/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-01273-1/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

Federico Rodriguez,

Petitioner,

v. 

Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et 

al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-18-01273-PHX-RM

ORDER 

On April 22, 2020, Magistrate Judge Lynette C. Kimmins issued a Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 23) recommending that this Court enter an order dismissing 

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) as untimely. No objections to 

the Report and Recommendation were filed.

A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 

magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 

72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 

filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 

in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 

F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the 

district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, 

CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for 

Case 2:18-cv-01273-RM Document 24 Filed 06/11/20 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

clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).

The Court has reviewed Judge Kimmins’s Report and Recommendation, the 

parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Judge Kimmins’s Report and 

Recommendation. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) is accepted 

and adopted in full.

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

Corpus (Doc. 17) is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 

accordingly and close this case.

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

Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, because 

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 478, 484 (2000).

Dated this 10th day of June, 2020.

Case 2:18-cv-01273-RM Document 24 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 2