Michael A Garner v. Mark Gutierrez

Opinion

Michael A Garner, No. CV-25-00017-TUC-RM

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

Mark Gutierrez,

Respondent. On April 8, 2026, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Rateau issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) recommending that this Court deny the Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition (Doc. 1) and Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 21). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, CV 10-225-TUC- RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for clear error 1 unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation). The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation, the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) is accepted and adopted in full. 2. The Petition (Doc. 1) is denied. 3. Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 21) is denied. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Respondent and close this case. Dated this 27th day of April, 2026. a , plf7 Honorable Rostviary Mafquez United States District □□□□□

-2-