Stewart v. Gunther

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

9 Richard E Stewart, No. CV-24-02106-PHX-SHD 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Jason 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 denied or dismissed without prejudice as unripe. (Doc. 18). The time for filing objections has run, and neither party filed objections.

20 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 24 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. 25 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.’”); see also Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions 1|| of the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object’). District 2|| 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) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (‘[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those || portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”’).

6 No objection having been filed, 7 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is accepted in || part.

9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed, without prejudice, as 10|| unripe, and the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.!

11 Dated this 20th day of May, 2025.

13 / 14 2 / H le Sharad H. Desai 17 United States District Judge 28} 1 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-