Matthews #345285 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Tollie Bernon Matthews,
Petitioner,
v.
Ryan Thornell, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-02273-PHX-DLR (ESW)
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Tollie Bernon Matthews’ Petition (Doc. 1) and United
States Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
(Doc. 15). The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the petition with
prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file
objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a
waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Neither party filed objections, which relieves the Court
of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . .
of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district
judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is
well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
Case 2:25-cv-02273-DLR Document 16 Filed 06/23/26 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
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The
district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 15) is ACCEPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED and
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is justified
by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment
accordingly and terminate this case.
Dated this 22nd day of June, 2026.
Douglas L. Rayes
Senior United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02273-DLR Document 16 Filed 06/23/26 Page 2 of 2