Espada #324472 v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona

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
Francisco Espada, Jr.,
Petitioner,
v.
Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et
al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-02048-PHX-SMB
ORDER
United States Magistrate Judge Eileen Willett issued a report and recommendation
(“R&R”) (Doc. 22) recommending that Petitioner’s Amended Petition (Doc. 11) be
dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 23) which
the Court construes as his objections to the R&R. The Court reviews the R&R and
Petitioner’s objections de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating
that the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which
specific objections are made).
While unclear, Petitioner seems to object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings related
to procedural default. After a de novo review of the R&R, the Court fully agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions and rejects Petitioner’s objections as
meritless. See United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (noting that in a
de novo review a “district court had no obligation to provide individualized analysis of
each objection”). Accordingly, the Court accepts the recommended decision within the
meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and overrules Petitioner’s objections.
Case 2:25-cv-02048-SMB Document 24 Filed 05/08/26 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
See § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Doc. 22) is adopted and the Amended Petition is dismissed with
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s objections (Doc. 23) are overruled.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a certificate of appealability and leave
to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Amended
Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the
procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and
terminate this case.
Dated this 8th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02048-SMB Document 24 Filed 05/08/26 Page 2 of 2