Rogers v. Hudson

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

9 Eric Rogers, No. CV-24-00409-TUC-JCH 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. B. Hudson, 13 Respondent.

15 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Doc. 16. Judge Rateau recommends dismissing the Petition.

17 Id. at 1. The deadline for either party to object to the R&R was February 27, 2025. Id. at 12. Neither party objects to the R&R. See generally docket.

19 If no objections are filed, the district judge is not required to review the magistrate judge's R&R under any specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the district judge may conduct further review, "sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard." Id. at 154. The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).

28 The Court has reviewed and considered the Petition (Doc. 1), the Response and exhibits (Docs. 11 and 12), Petitioner's Reply (Doc. 15), and the Magistrate's R&R 2|| (Doc. 16). The Court finds the R&R is well-reasoned and adopts Magistrate Judge || Rateau's findings and conclusions.

4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED ADOPTING IN FULL the R&R (Doc. 16).

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition (Doc. 1) and dismissing this 7\| matter. The Clerk of the Court shall docket this matter accordingly.

8 Dated this 23rd day of April, 2025.

10 f fy . | 2 / / John C. Hinderaker 3 _/United States District Judge _2-