McElroy #165158 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
Willie James McElroy, Jr,
Petitioner,
v.
Ryan Thornell, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-01064-PHX-DWL
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 15). The R&R, which was issued on October 28,
2025, recommends that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice and further
provides that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of
this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc.
15 at 39.)
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-01064-DWL Document 16 Filed 11/20/25 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
(“[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. 15) is accepted,
that the Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and 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 20th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-01064-DWL Document 16 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 2