Eisenhour v. Gutierrez

Opinion

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

9 Jimmy Lee Eisenhour, No. CV-23-00279-TUC-JCH

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 M. Gutierrez,

13 Respondent. 14 15 On January 24, 2024, Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and 16 Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that the Court deny Petitioner Jimmy Lee 17 Eisenhour's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 10. The R&R 18 notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to file any 19 objections. Id. at 3. No objections have been filed. 20 If no objections are filed, the district judge is not required to review the magistrate 21 judge's R&R under any specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 22 (1985). However, the district judge may conduct further review, "sua sponte or at the 23 request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard." Id. at 154. 24 The Court has reviewed and considered the Petition (Doc. 1), Warden Gutierrez's 25 Response and exhibits (Doc. 7), and the Magistrate's R&R (Doc. 10). The Court finds the 26 R&R is well–reasoned and adopts Magistrate Judge Aguilera's findings and conclusions. 27 The Court need not issue a certificate of appealability in this matter. See Harrison 28 v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding a § 2241 habeas does not require a || certificate of appealability "unless the section 2241 petition is a section 2255 petition in 2|| disguise"). 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 4 1. ADOPTING the R&R (Doc. 10); and 5 2. DENYING Petitioner Eisenhour's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 6 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1.) and DISMISSING this matter. The Clerk of Court shall 7 docket this matter accordingly. 8 Dated this Ist day of March, 2024. 9 10 f fy . | 2 / / John C. Hinderaker 3 _/United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-