Charles D Cole v. Michael Cimino, et al.

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

9 Charles D Cole, No. CV-25-04086-PHX-SMB (DMF) 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Michael Cimino, et al., 13 Respondents.

14 United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine has issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 28) recommending that Petitioner’s “Renewed Emergency Motion for Interim Relief from Probation” (Doc. 23) be denied. The Court has now reviewed the R&R, Petitioner’s objections, and the Government’s reply to the objections de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made).

21 Petitioner lodges seven objections at the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. After a de novo review of the R&R, the Court fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions and rejects Petitioner’s objections as meritless. See United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (noting that in a de novo review a “district court had no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection”). Accordingly, the Court accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or || recommendations made by the magistrate’’).

2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the || Magistrate Judge (Doc. 28) is adopted.

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s objections (Doc. 30) are overruled.

5 Dated this 25th day of March, 2026.

6 □□ .

8 A lonorable Susan M. Brnovich United States District Judge -2-