Cristian Daniel Quinatoa Guachamin v. Luis Rosa, Jr.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

9 Cristian Daniel Quinatoa Guachamin, No. CV-26-02854-PHX-SHD

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Luis Rosa, Jr.,

13 Respondent. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 16 Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 12.) The Magistrate Judge to whom this 17 case was referred issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Amended 18 Petition be granted to the extent that Petitioner be provided a bond redetermination hearing 19 within seven days of the entry of judgment or release Petitioner subject to appropriate 20 conditions. (Doc. 24.) The time for filing objections has run, and neither party filed 21 objections. 22 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 23 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 24 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 25 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 26 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. 27 Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 28 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 1 otherwise.’”); see also Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Memt., 2 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object”). District courts are not required to conduct “any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an 5 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. 6 § 636(b)(1) ([T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”’). 8 No objection having been filed, 9 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24) is accepted; the Amended Petition is granted to the extent that Petitioner shall be provided a bond 11 redetermination hearing. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a 13 bond redetermination hearing within seven (7) days of the entry of judgment, or release Petitioner from ICE custody subject to appropriate conditions of release. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file a notice of compliance within three (3) days of providing Petitioner a bond redetermination hearing or releasing Petitioner. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue judgment accordingly and close this case. 20 Dated this 23rd day of July, 2026. 21

23 24 H le Sharad H. Desai 95 United States District Judge 26 27 28

-2-