Andrew Settles v. B. Hudson, Warden

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 4 Andrew Settles, No. CV-24-00258-TUC-JAS (LCK) 5 Petitioner, ORDER 6 Vv.

7 B. Hudson, Warden, 8 Respondent.

10 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States || Magistrate Judge Kimmins. A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed □□ any objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has || expired. As such, the Court will not consider any objections or new evidence.

14 The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Kimmins’ || recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; || Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 17||_ F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 19 (1) Magistrate Judge Kimmins’ Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) is accepted and 20 adopted.

1 (2) The § 2241 Petition is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice; the Clerk 22 of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case.

23 Dated this 5th day of January, 2026.

26 Honorable James A. Soto 27 United States District Judge