Francois #310554 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
The Court has before it, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), and the Response from the Respondents, (Doc. 10).
Additionally, the Court has also carefully reviewed the Reply to Response, (Doc. 39), the
Reply to Response, (Doc. 40), the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge,
(Doc. 43), Petitioner’s Objections, (Doc. 46), and Respondent’s Reply to the Petitioner’s
Objections. (Doc.47)
A district judge “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). When a party files a
timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R
that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires
specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It
follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific
objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
Kevin Lee Francois
Petitioner,
v.
State of Arizona, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 24-3231-PHX-SPL
ORDER
Case 2:24-cv-03231-SPL Document 48 Filed 06/10/26 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
U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial
economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or
arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s
decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622
(9th Cir. 2000).
The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently
developed record. The Petitioner’s objections to the findings and recommendations have
also been thoroughly considered.
After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches
the same conclusions reached by the magistrate judge. The R&R will be adopted in full.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 43) is
accepted and adopted by the Court.
2. That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 46) are overruled.
3. That Grounds 2 and 11 of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1)
are denied, and the remainder of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is
dismissed with prejudice.
4. That a Certificate of Appealability on appeal is denied because the dismissal
of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find
the ruling debatable; and
5. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this
action.
Dated this 9th day of June 2026.
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cv-03231-SPL Document 48 Filed 06/10/26 Page 2 of 2