Reece v. Baltazar

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Jason Reece, No. CV-18-00522-TUC-JGZ 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Unknown Baltazar, 13 Respondent.

15 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro that recommends denying Petitioner’s habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 21.) Petitioner filed an Objection and Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner’s Objection. (Docs. 23, 24.)

19 This Court “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)(1). “[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). District courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

26 // // // 1 DISCUSSION!

2 Petitioner’s objection raises essentially the same arguments he raised before Magistrate Judge Ferraro. As thoroughly explained by Magistrate Judge Ferraro, Petitioner is not entitled to relief as his petition 1s without merit. Because Petitioner’s objection does || not undermine the analysis and proper conclusion reached by Magistrate Judge Ferraro, 6|| Petitioner’s objection is rejected and the Report and Recommendation is adopted.”

7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 8 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) is accepted and adopted; 9 2. Petitioner’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) is overruled.

10 3. Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and this case is dismissed with || prejudice; 12 4. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this || matter.

14 Dated this 12th day of August, 2019.

17 pote Spee 18 Honorable Jennifer Zfpps 19 United States District Judge 29 ' The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s || Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 21.)

27 > The Court notes that a certificate of appealability is not required in this case. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir 2008) (there is no “statutory basis for 28 imposing a COA requirement on legitimate § 2241 petitions...” filed by federal prisoners). _2-