Cantillo v. Unknown Party

Opinion

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

9 Lazaro Cantillo, No. CV-23-00093-TUC-RCC

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Unknown Party, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 On April 24, 2024, Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich issued a Report and 16 Recommendation ("R&R") in which he recommended the Court dismiss Petitioner's 17 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 with prejudice. (Doc. 15.) 18 Judge Markovich notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days from the date of the 19 R&R to file any objections. (Id. at 14.) No objections have been filed. 20 If neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s R&R, the District Court is not 21 required to review the magistrate judge’s decision under any specified standard of 22 review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the statute for review of a 23 magistrate judge’s recommendation “does not preclude further review by the district 24 judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. 25 at 154. 26 The Court has reviewed the Petition (Doc. 1), Respondent's response (Doc. 14), 27 and the R&R (Doc. 15). The Court finds the R&R well-reasoned and agrees with Judge 28 Markovich's conclusions. 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 2 1) Magistrate Judge Markovich's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 3 15.) 4 2) Petitioner Lazaro Cantillo’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 5 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED. (Doc. 1). 6 3) Should Petitioner choose to file an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate 7 of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling 8 debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 9 4) This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall docket 10 accordingly. 11 Dated this 21st day of May, 2024. 12 13 14 _ Dp ST IS Honorable Raner ©. Collins 16 merior United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-