Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03869/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03869-1/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 

Jon La'Marr Gary, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-18-03869-PHX-DWL 

ORDER 

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 11). The R&R, which was issued on June 13, 

2019, recommended that the petition be denied 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. 11 at 17.) 

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, 1221 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 

Case 2:18-cv-03869-DWL Document 12 Filed 07/12/19 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 

de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 11) is accepted, 

that the Petition (Doc. 1) is denied, 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 petitioner has not made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 Dated this 12th day of July, 2019. 

Case 2:18-cv-03869-DWL Document 12 Filed 07/12/19 Page 2 of 2