Bassett 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
Lonnie Allen Bassett,
Petitioner,
v.
Ryan Thornell, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-24-02352-PHX-MTL
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Lonnie Allen Bassett’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. 1) and United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 20). The R&R recommends that the Court deny and
dismiss the petition with prejudice. (Doc. 20.) 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
Case 2:24-cv-02352-MTL Document 21 Filed 12/03/25 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
modify, in whole or in part, the 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. 20) is ACCEPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(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 jurists of reason would not find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling, and jurists of
reason would not find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable
or wrong.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment
accordingly and terminate this case.
Dated this 2nd day of December, 2025.
Case 2:24-cv-02352-MTL Document 21 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 2