Cantillo v. Unknown Party

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

9 Lazaro Cantillo, No. CV-23-00093-TUC-RCC 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Unknown Party, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 On April 24, 2024, Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in which he recommended the Court dismiss Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 with prejudice. (Doc. 15.)

18 Judge Markovich notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to file any objections. (Id. at 14.) No objections have been filed.

20 If neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s R&R, the District Court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s decision under any specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the statute for review of a magistrate judge’s recommendation “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154.

26 The Court has reviewed the Petition (Doc. 1), Respondent's response (Doc. 14), and the R&R (Doc. 15). The Court finds the R&R well-reasoned and agrees with Judge Markovich's conclusions.

1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 2 1) Magistrate Judge Markovich's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc.

3 15.)

4 2) Petitioner Lazaro Cantillo’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 5 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED. (Doc. 1).

6 3) Should Petitioner choose to file an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate 7 of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling 8 debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

9 4) This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall docket 10 accordingly.

11 Dated this 21st day of May, 2024.

14 _ Dp ST IS Honorable Raner ©. Collins 16 merior United States District Judge _2-