Jacob P Smith v. Jason Gunther

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01790
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Jacob P Smith, No. CV-24-01790-PHX-JAT

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Jason Gunther,

13 Respondent. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 14). The petition asserts three grounds for relief. (Doc. 17 14 at 7, 10, 12). The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred issued a Report and 18 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the petition be denied as to Ground 1 and 19 denied and dismissed without prejudice as to Grounds Two and Three. (Doc. 22 at 10). The 20 Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies 21 regarding Grounds 2 and 3 but also concluded that both grounds for relief failed on the 22 merits. (Doc. 22 at 8–10). The time for filing objections has run, and neither party filed 23 objections. 24 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 25 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 26 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 27 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 28 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo 2|| review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”’); || Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th 4|| Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s]| 5 || recommendations to which the parties object’’). District courts are not required to conduct 6|| “any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 7\| 474U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court 8 || shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report [and recommendation] 9|| ...to which objection is made.”). 10 No objections having been filed, 11 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted; the petition is denied as to Ground | and denied and dismissed without prejudice as to 13 || Grounds Two and Three. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.! 14 Dated this 28th day of October, 2025. 15

17 James A. Teilborg 18 Senior United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28] 1 Because the Petition was filed pursuant to § 2241, no certificate of appealability is necessary. See Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm ‘n, 114 F.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir. 1997). _2-