Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02060/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02060-1/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

Chad Robert Lee Kit,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-02060-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 13) and the Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 17). The R&R, 

which was issued on November 21, 2019, recommended that the 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. 17 at 8.) 

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, 

Case 2:19-cv-02060-DWL Document 18 Filed 01/02/20 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

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[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. 17) is 

accepted, that the First Amended Petition (Doc. 13) 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 the dismissal of the petition is 

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

ruling debatable.

Dated this 2nd day of January, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-02060-DWL Document 18 Filed 01/02/20 Page 2 of 2