United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
SHARON L. GLEASON, District Judge.
Before the Court at Docket 5 is the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Joe Kenard Jones Jr. on June 7, 2013, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 11, 2013, Respondents Charles L. Ryan, et al., filed an Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at Docket 16. Mr. Jones filed a Reply at Docket 17. On April 9, 2014, at Docket 21, Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns issued a Report and Recommendation. After a thoughtful and thorough analysis, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Petition be denied and that this action be dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied.
On April 16, 2014, Mr. Jones filed a motion to extend his time within which to file objections, which the Court granted, extending the deadline for objections to June 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, Mr. Jones filed a Motion to Assign and Appoint New Counsel. On October 3, 2014, the Court issued an Order concluding that, based on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, assistance of counsel was not necessary at this stage of the proceedings. But the Court granted Mr. Jones an additional 14 days to file any objections to the R&R. That deadline has passed and no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That statute provides that a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." The court is to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." But when no objections are filed, "[n]either the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct."
There being no objections filed by either party, and following this Court's review of the R&R, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Habeas Corpus is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because Mr. Jones has not "made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" as required by 28 U.S.C. § ...