Robert Charles Mendoza v. Unknown Party

Opinion

Robert Charles Mendoza, No. CV-25-00221-TUC-JGZ

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

Unknown Party,

Respondent. Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Michael A. Ambri that recommends dismissing Petitioner’s habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 13.) No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired. Accordingly, the Court will not consider any objections or new evidence. This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). District courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. // // 1 As thoroughly explained by Magistrate Judge Ambri, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s claim. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in full.! IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Ambri’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is accepted and adopted; 2. Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice; 3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this matter. Dated this 7th day of January, 2026.

p/ Jennifer G. Ti ps Chiet United States District Judge ' The Court notes that a certificate of appealability is not required in this case. See Harrison vy. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir 2008) (there is no “statutory basis for imposing a COA requirement on legitimate § 2241 petitions .. .” filed by federal prisoners). -2-