United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 2025

Tommy Gene Jones v. Christopher Moody, et al.

Tommy Gene Jones v. Christopher Moody, et al.
United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Decided October 21, 2025
Tommy Gene Jones v. Christopher Moody, et al.

Trial Court Opinion

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

9 Tommy Gene Jones, No. CV-24-00599-TUC-AMM 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Christopher Moody, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 On October 3, 2025, Magistrate Judge Lynnette C. Kimmins issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 14.) Judge Kimmins notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days to file any written objections to the proposed findings and recommendation. (Id. at 15.) Neither party filed an objection, and the time to do so has now passed.

20 A district court is 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 22 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes 1983 Addition. A district judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1 The Court has reviewed Judge Kimmins’s R&R, the parties’ briefs, and the record.

2|| The Court finds no clear error and agrees with the findings and recommendation.

3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc.

14.)

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is 7\| DISMISSED. (Doc. 1.) The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close || this case.

9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, because |} reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 484 (2000).

13 Dated this 20th day of October, 2025.

I Din la be. WT 16 ~ Honorable Angela M. Martinez 7 United States District Judge _2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.