Arreola v. Blanckensee

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 27, 2023
• Docket: 4:20-cv-00351
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Sergio Arreola, No. CV-20-00351-TUC-DCB

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Barbara von Blanckensee,

13 Respondent. 14 15 This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau, pursuant to 16 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, District of Arizona (Local Rules), 17 Rule (Civil) 72.1(a). She issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on October 3, 2022. 18 (R&R (Doc. 11)). She recommends dismissing the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for 19 Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody. 20 Petitioner seeks expungement of a disciplinary sanction that resulted in loss of 90 21 days of visitation privileges, release from the Secured Housing Unit (SHU), and an order 22 directing Respondent to properly consider him for home confinement/compassionate 23 release. 24 The Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court find expungement is a non- 25 cognizable claim because loss of 90 days of visitation does not change the duration of his 26 confinement. He is no longer housed in the SHU, and this claim is moot. He has no 27 constitutional right to compassionate release. 28 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R&R of a Magistrate Judge, are 3 set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The 4 district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 5 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 6 636(b)(1). When the parties object to a R&R, “‘[a] judge of the [district] court shall make 7 a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.’” 8 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). When no 9 objections are filed, the district court does not need to review the R&R de novo. Wang v. 10 Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 11 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). 12 The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed they had 14 days to file 13 written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), see also, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 72 14 (party objecting to the recommended disposition has fourteen (14) days to file specific, 15 written objections). To date, no objections have been filed. 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 17 The Honorable Jacqueline M. Rateau, United States Magistrate Judge, considered 18 the issues raised in the Petition. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court makes a de novo 19 determination as to those portions of the R&R to which there are objections. 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of 21 the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is 22 made.") To the extent that no objection has been made, arguments to the contrary have 23 been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to 24 Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see also, Advisory Committee Notes 25 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th 26 Cir. 1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is 27 no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation). 28 1 While there are no objections and review has, therefore, been waived, the Court 2|| nevertheless reviews at a minimum, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law. 3|| Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) (conclusions of law by a magistrate judge reviewed de novo); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to object standing alone will || not ordinarily waive question of law but is a factor in considering the propriety of finding || waiver)). The Court finds the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned, without any clear 8 || error in law or fact. United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as providing for district court to reconsider matters delegated to 10 || magistrate judge when there is clear error or recommendation is contrary to law). The Court 11 || accepts and adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 12 || For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court denies the Petition. 13 Accordingly, 14 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is adopted as the 15 || opinion of the Court. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff, who proceeds here in forma pauperis || under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, files an appeal, the Court finds the appeal is not taken in good 18 || faith because an appeal would be frivolous as there is no substantial argument to be made || contrary to this Court’s determination recorded here. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) and FRAP 20 || 24(a); Cruz v. Hauck, 404 U.S. 59, 62 (1971). 21 Dated this 24th day of February, 2023. 22 23 S= Honorable David C. But 26 United StatesPrstrict Judge 27 28

-3-