Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08078/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08078-2/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 

Carlton Errol Godwin, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-08078-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, as 

amended (“Petition”). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”) (Doc. 41) recommending that the Petition be denied because it is barred by the 

statute of limitations. 

 Respondents did not file objections to the R&R. This Court granted Petitioner an 

extension of time to file objections (Doc. 44), but Petitioner did not file objections. 

Because neither party has filed objections to the R&R, the Court hereby accepts the 

R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not 

required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 

objection” (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 

otherwise” (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

Case 3:13-cv-08078-JAT Document 45 Filed 07/15/15 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 

 Based on the foregoing, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

41) is ACCEPTED; accordingly, 

 $ Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, as amended, is 

denied and dismissed with prejudice, 

 $ in the event Petitioner files an appeal, issuance of a certificate of 

appealability is denied because denial 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), and 

 $ the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with 

prejudice. 

 Dated this 15th day of July, 2015. 

Case 3:13-cv-08078-JAT Document 45 Filed 07/15/15 Page 2 of 2