Bennetti #085442 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
Dino Joseph Bennetti,
Petitioner,
v.
Ryan Thornell, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-00169-PHX-DWL
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 34). The R&R, which was issued on February
17, 2026, recommends that the petition be dismissed with prejudice and further provides
that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this
recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 34
at 28.)
Here, no such objections have been filed and the 14-day deadline has expired. Thus,
the Court adopts the R&R. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does
not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual
or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to
those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o
review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are
filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)
Case 2:25-cv-00169-DWL Document 35 Filed 03/10/26 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
(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations
de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 34) is accepted,
that the Petition (Doc. 1) is dismissed with prejudice, and that the Clerk of Court shall
enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and because dismissal is justified
by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling
debatable.
Dated this 9th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-00169-DWL Document 35 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 2