Irvin Villegas Garcia v. Unknown Party, et al.

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

9 Irvin Villegas Garcia, No. CV-24-03062-PHX-DWL 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Unknown Party, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 39). The R&R, which was issued on October 10, 2025, recommends “that Grounds One and Two be denied on the merits, Ground Three be dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court be directed to terminate this matter.” (Doc. 39 at 10.) The R&R further provides that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 23 at 17.)

23 Here, no such objections have been filed and the 14-day deadline has expired. Thus, the Court adopts the R&R. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 2|| (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 3|| de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”’).

4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 39) is accepted, || that the Amended Petition (Doc. 6) is denied in part and dismissed without prejudice in 7\| part, and that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to 9|| proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a || substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

11 Dated this 12th day of November, 2025.

13 Lm ee” 14 f t _o———— Dominic W, Lanza 15 United States District Judge _2-