Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-04092/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-04092-1/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

LaQuint Cherry,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-18-04092-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s second amended petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 11) and the Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 36). The R&R, which was issued on January 24, 

2020, recommended that the second amended petition be 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. 36 at 13.) 

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, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 

Case 2:18-cv-04092-DWL Document 37 Filed 02/25/20 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

(“[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. 36) is accepted, 

that the second amended petition (Doc. 11) is 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 dismissal of the petition is 

justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling 

debatable.

Dated this 24th day of February, 2020.

Case 2:18-cv-04092-DWL Document 37 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 2