Daniel Delfin Garces v. Eric Rokosky

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

9 Daniel Delfin Garces, No. CV-26-03632-PHX-DWL

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Eric Rokosky,

13 Respondent. 14 15 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 17 the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 13). The R&R, which was issued on August 6, 18 2026, recommends that the Petition “be granted to the extent that Petitioner be provided a 19 bond redetermination hearing” and further provides that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen 20 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific 21 written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 13 at 8-9.) 22 Here, no objections have been filed by Respondents and the 14-day deadline has 23 expired. Thus, Respondents have forfeited any objection to the R&R. See, e.g., Thomas 24 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require 25 district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any 26 other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 27 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s 28 report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna- 1 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (‘[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 3 otherwise.”). 4 Meanwhile, Petitioner has filed a “Motion Regarding Report and Recommendation” in which he expresses gratitude for the R&R’s recommendation that he receive a bond 6 hearing but expresses concern about his ability to pay any resulting bond. (Doc. 14.) To 7\| the extent this motion was intended to function as an objection to the R&R, it is □□□□□□□□ 8 following the Court’s de novo review of the R&R. United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (‘[T]he district court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection.”’). 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED that: 13 l. The R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 13) is accepted. 14 2. Petitioner’s motion (Doc. 14) is denied. 15 3. The Petition (Doc. 1) granted to the extent that Petitioner shall be provided with a bond redetermination hearing. 17 4. Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond redetermination hearing 18 ) within twenty-one (21) days of the entry of judgment; absent a timely bond redetermination hearing, Respondents shall release Petitioner from ICE custody under the same conditions that existed before Petitioner’s present immigration detention. 21 5. Respondents shall file a notice of compliance within three (3) days of providing Petitioner a bond redetermination hearing or releasing Petitioner. 23 6. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. 24 Dated this 25th day of August, 2026. 25

Dominic W. Lanza 28 United States District Judge

-2-