Rong v. Arizona, State of 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
Yi Rong,
Plaintiff,
v.
State of Arizona, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00351-TUC-JGZ (LCK)
ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States
Magistrate Judge Lynnette C. Kimmins that recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff filed an Objection
to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 23.)
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). “[T]he 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). 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). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
//
//
//
Case 4:25-cv-00351-JGZ-LCK Document 24 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 3

- 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
DISCUSSION1
Plaintiff’s objection raises essentially the same arguments she raised before
Magistrate Judge Kimmins. As thoroughly explained by Magistrate Judge Kimmins,
Plaintiff’s claims are either not cognizable, barred as a matter of law, or fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Because Plaintiff’s objection does not undermine the
analysis and proper conclusion reached by Magistrate Judge Kimmins, Plaintiff’s objection
is rejected, and the Report and Recommendation is adopted.
Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability
must issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1) (the applicant cannot take an appeal unless a circuit
justice or a circuit or district judge issues a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)). Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue only if
the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. In the
certificate, the court must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(3). A substantial showing is made when the resolution of an issue of appeal is
debatable among reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the
issue deserves further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).
Upon review of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability,
the Court concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not
debatable among reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
1 The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 22.)
Case 4:25-cv-00351-JGZ-LCK Document 24 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
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
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted and adopted;
2. Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) is overruled.
3. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) is dismissed with prejudice.
4. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this
matter.
Dated this 12th day of February, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00351-JGZ-LCK Document 24 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 3