Hill #066344 v. Thornell et al

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Michael Lynn Hill,
Petitioner,
v.
Ryan Thornell, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-00200-PHX-SHD
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus. (Doc. 7.) The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Amended Petition be dismissed
with prejudice as untimely. (Doc. 13). On December 9, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion to
extend time to file object to the R&R, (Doc. 14), which the Court granted, extending the
deadline until January 23, 2026. (Doc. 15.) Neither party has objected to the R&R and the
time for filing objections has run.
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that
the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de
novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d
1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo
review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not
Case 2:25-cv-00200-SHD Document 16 Filed 02/23/26 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
otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d
1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the
[Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are
not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an
objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
[report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).
There being no objections,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 13) is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition in this case is dismissed
with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a
certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis because dismissal of the
Amended 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).
Dated this 23rd day of February, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-00200-SHD Document 16 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 2