Ramos v. Gunther

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02280
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Richard Lee Ramos, No. CV-24-02280-PHX-SHD

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. The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred 17 issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Petition be denied. 18 (Doc. 15.) The time for filing objections has run, and neither party filed objections. 19 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 21 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 22 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 23 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. 24 Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 25 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 26 otherwise.’”); see also Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 27 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions 28 of the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object”). District || courts are not required to conduct “any review at all... of any issue that is not the 2|| subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see 3|| also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (‘[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”). 5 No objection having been filed, 6 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is accepted; the Petition is denied and dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk of Court shall enter 8 || judgment accordingly.! 9 Dated this 26th day of June, 2025. 10 11 / 12 ) / 13 ) x i H le Sharad H. Desai 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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.3rd 878, 879 (9th Cir. 1897), _2-