Jensen v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Kent Jensen, No. CV-22-01881-PHX-JAT 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 Federal Bureau of Prisons, 13 Respondent. [14] 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued 17 a Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 12) recommending that this Court deny the 18 Petition as moot. 19 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). It is “clear that 21 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 22 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 23 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 24 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 25 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 26 otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 27 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the 28 [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are || not required to conduct “any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an 2|| objection.” Thomas v. 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 and recommendation] to which objection is made.’’). 5 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Therefore, the Court hereby accepts 6|| the R&R. 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) is accepted; the || Petition is denied as moot and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is not required. || See Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 114 F.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir. 1997). 12 Dated this 23rd day of August, 2023. [13] 14 i C [15] 16 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge [28] _2-