Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00105/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00105-1/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

Manuel Armando Reyna, Jr.,

Petitioner,

v. 

Bruno Stolc, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-18-00105-TUC-RM

ORDER 

On August 20, 2019, Magistrate Judge Lynette C. Kimmins issued a Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 19) recommending that this Court deny Petitioner Manuel 

Armando Reyna, Jr.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 

1). 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 4:18-cv-00105-RM Document 20 Filed 01/13/20 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 clear error in Judge Kimmins’s Report 

and Recommendation. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted 

and adopted in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied. 

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 January, 2020.

Case 4:18-cv-00105-RM Document 20 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 2