Ortuno-Perez v. ICE Field Office Director

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA SANTIAGO ORTUNO-PEREZ, CASE NO. C23-0344 BHS Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 9 v. AND RECOMMENDATION ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 11 Respondent.

13 This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of the Honorable David W. Christel, Dkt. 16.

15 A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed finding or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 17 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (emphasis added); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A proper objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” in the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

1 Petitioner Santiago Ortuno-Perez has not objected to the R&R. He instead filed two copies of the same document to “supplement” his underlying petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Dkts. 17, 18. This document does not mention the R&R, let alone address any of its findings or recommendations. See generally Dkts. 17, 18. Accordingly, Ortuno-Perez is not entitled to have the Court review any portion of the R&R de novo.

6 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

7 The Court, having considered the R&R and the remaining record, and no objections having been filed, does hereby find and order as follows: 9 (1) The R&R is ADOPTED; 10 (2) Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Dkt. 1, is DENIED; 11 (3) Respondent’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 7, is GRANTED; 12 (4) This action is DISMISSED with prejudice; and 13 (5) The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.

14 Dated this 7th day of September, 2023.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge