Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03362/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03362-1/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

Guadalupe Garcia Cortez,

Petitioner,

v. 

Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et 

al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-18-03362-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

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

(“R&R”) (Doc. 12) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles. 

After consideration of the issues raised in the Petition, Judge Bibles concluded in 

her R&R that the Petition was untimely. She further found that Petitioner had 

procedurally defaulted his federal habeas claim in the state courts, and had not 

established cause for or prejudice arising from his procedural default, or that he had 

asserted his factual innocence of the crime for which he was convicted. (Id. at 13). 

Accordingly, Judge Bibles recommends the Petition be denied. (Id.).

Judge Bibles advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and 

that the failure to timely do so “may result in the acceptance of the Report and 

Recommendation by the District Court without further review.” (Id. at 13-14) (citing 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). Petitioner 

has not filed an objection and the time to do so has expired. Respondents have also not 

Case 2:18-cv-03362-DJH Document 13 Filed 01/07/20 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

filed an objection. Absent any objections, the Court is not required to review the findings 

and recommendations in the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (noting 

that the relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), “does 

not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 

objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district 

judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 

properly objected to.”).

Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed Judge Bibles’s well-reasoned R&R and 

agrees with its findings and recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R 

and dismiss the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court may accept, 

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 

magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Bibles’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 12) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the Order of this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

on appeal are DENIED because dismissal of the Petitioner is justified by a plain 

procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable, nor has he 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this 

action and enter judgment accordingly. 

Dated this 7th day of January, 2020.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cv-03362-DJH Document 13 Filed 01/07/20 Page 2 of 2