Opinion
No. CV 10-2616-PHX-JAT.
August 15, 2011
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") (Doc. 1). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R R") (Doc. 16) recommending that the Petition be denied as untimely.
Neither party has filed objections to the R R. Accordingly, 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).
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is ACCEPTED; accordingly,
• Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice as untimely,
• because the Petition is untimely and a stay would not change the timeliness of the Petition, Petitioner's motion to stay (Doc. 9) is denied,
• 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.