Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-01516/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-01516-1/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

Everett Gregory Casteel,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Ryan Thornell, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-23-01516-PHX-GMS (MTM)

ORDER

and

DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge Morrissey (Doc. 12) regarding Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that the 

Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties 

that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 7 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). No objections were filed.

Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the 

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any 

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a 

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the 

rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A 

Case 2:23-cv-01516-GMS Document 13 Filed 12/19/24 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

party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a 

copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not 

timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); 

Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).

The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).

IT IS ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 

(Doc.12) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 

and dismissing petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (Doc. 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

A request for a certificate of appealability will be denied because the dismissal of 

the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the 

ruling debatable. 

Dated this 18th day of December, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-01516-GMS Document 13 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 2