Velasquez v. Gunther

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Alejandro Velasquez, No. CV-24-02446-PHX-JAT 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 Jason Gunther, 13 Respondent. [14] 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred issued 17 a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Petition be denied and 18 dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 12). The time for filing objections has run, and neither 19 party filed objections. 20 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). It is “clear that 22 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 23 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 24 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 25 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 26 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 27 otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 28 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the || [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are 2|| not required to conduct “any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas vy. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report 5 || and recommendation] to which objection is made.”). 6 No objections having been filed, 7 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) is accepted; the 8 || Petition is denied and dismissed, without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.! 10 Dated this 17th day of April, 2025. [11] 12 a [13] James A. Teilborg 14 Senior United States District Judge [27] 1 Because the Petition was filed pursuant to § 2241, no certificate of appealability is necessary. See Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 114 F.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir. 1997), _2-