Bruce-Pino v. Unknown Party

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 23, 2024
• Docket: 4:24-cv-00008
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Juan David Bruce-Pino, No. CV-24-00008-TUC-SHR (MAA)

10 Petitioner, Order Denying § 2241 Habeas Petition

11 v.

12 FCI Safford Low Warden,

13 Respondent.

14 15 On April 26, 2024, Magistrate Judge Michael A. Ambri issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending the Court deny Petitioner’s Petition for Writ 17 of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 10 at 5.) The Magistrate Judge informed the parties they had 18 fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and an additional fourteen days to respond. 19 (Id.) No objections have been filed and neither party has requested additional time to do 20 so. 21 If neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the 22 District Court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s decision under any specified 23 standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna- 24 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (district court only needs to review 25 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made). However, 26 the statute for review of a magistrate judge’s recommendation “does not preclude further 27 review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any 28 other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. 1 In this case, the deadline for filing objections has passed. As noted, no objections 2|| have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so. Consequently, || the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 4}| 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (district court declined to review the magistrate judge’s 5 || report because no objections were filed). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed Petitioner’s 6|| Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), the Respondent’s Return and Answer to Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 9), and Judge Ambri’s R&R. (Doc. || 10.) The Court finds the R&R well-reasoned and agrees with Judge Ambri’s conclusions. 9|| Accordingly, 10 IT IS ORDERED Magistrate Judge Michael A. Ambri's Report and 11 || Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. 10.) 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 13} (Doc. 1) is DENIED. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 15 || accordingly and close the file in this case. 16 Dated this 23rd day of May, 2024. 17 18 /} Aa: hel 20 Honorable Scott H, Rash _/ United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-