Julia Beth Coda v. Unknown Gunther

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

9 Julia Beth Coda, No. CV-25-03055-PHX-DWL 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Unknown Gunther, 13 Respondent.

15 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s 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. 19). The R&R, which was issued on February 13, 2026, recommends that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice and further provides that “[t]he parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 19 at 7.)

22 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) || (‘[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 2|| de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 19) is accepted, || that the Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that the Clerk of || Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

7 Dated this 9th day of March, 2026.

10 ‘Dominic W. Lanza 11 United States District Judge -2-