Juan Antonio Baca v. United States of America, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 26, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00276
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Juan Antonio Baca, No. CV-25-00276-TUC-JCH

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 United States of America, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Lynette C. Kimmins’s Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 29). Judge Kimmins recommends denying Petitioner’s 17 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See id. at 6. Neither 18 party objects to the R&R. See generally Docket. 19 A district court reviews objected-to portions of an R&R de novo. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 21 (9th Cir. 1989). Failure to timely object may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de 22 novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 23 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 72(b) of the 24 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court 25 need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept 26 the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s 27 note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 28 1999). 1 After independent review, the Court is satisfied that Judge Kimmins’s 2 || recommendation is sound. The Court will adopt the R&R in full. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED adopting in full the R&R (Doc. 29). 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s Amended Petition (Doc. 5). || The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 7 Dated this 24th day of November, 2025. 8 9 f 4) 10 J □□ □□ ll / / John C. Hinderaker _/United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-