Cole 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Charles D Cole,
Petitioner,
v.
Michael Cimino, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-04086-PHX-SMB
ORDER
United States Magistrate Judge Deborah Fine has issued a report and
recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 41) recommending that Petitioner’s Amended Petition
(Doc. 12) be dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner filed Objections (Doc. 43) and
Respondents filed a Reply (Doc. 53). Petitioner also filed several unauthorized
supplements and a reply to the reply (Docs. 44, 45, and 54). While unauthorized, the Court
has read and considered the additional pleadings. The Court has now reviewed 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 Report
and Recommendation to which specific objections are made).
Petitioner makes nine objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings. 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
Case 2:25-cv-04086-SMB Document 61 Filed 05/13/26 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
accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b) and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 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. 43) are overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 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 13th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-04086-SMB Document 61 Filed 05/13/26 Page 2 of 2