Watts v. Gunther

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

9 Michael Watts, No. CV-24-03135-PHX-JAT 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. J. Gunther, 13 Respondent.

15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Petition be dismissed. (Doc.

18 11). The time for filing objections has run, and neither party filed objections.1 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). It is “clear that the 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 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 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 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 Petitioner’s copy of the R&R was returned by the post office as undeliverable. (Doc. 12). || [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 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. 4|| § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report || and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).

6 No objections having been filed, 7 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is accepted; the || Petition is dismissed, without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 9|| accordingly.”

10 Dated this 10th day of March, 2025.

12 A 7 5 14 James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 28] 2 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-