Theodore E Essenfeld v. Unknown Dulgov, et al.

Opinion

WO

Theodore E Essenfeld, No. CV-25-00294-TUC-JGZ

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

Unknown Dulgov, et al.,

Respondents. Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau that recommends denying Petitioner’s Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody, Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion for Issuance of Subpoena. (Doc. 32.) Petitioner filed an Objection challenging all conclusions in the Report. (Doc. 34.) Petitioner also filed a Supplemental Motion to Reopen Record, (Doc. 36), which the Court granted, (Doc. 37). 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. “[D]istrict courts conduct proper de novo review [of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations] where they state they have done so, even if the order fails to specifically address a party’s objections.” United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023) (citing Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2005)). DISCUSSION1 The Court has thoroughly reviewed the record and Petitioner’s arguments. Petitioner’s Objection raises essentially the same arguments he presented to Magistrate Judge Rateau. As thoroughly explained by Magistrate Judge Rateau, Petitioner is not entitled to relief. Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s claims, and Ground Two is moot. The documents provided by Petitioner with his Supplemental Motion to Reopen Record do not change this result. Because Petitioner’s objections do not undermine the analysis and proper conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Rateau, Petitioner’s Objection is rejected and the Report and Recommendation is adopted.2 // // // // // // // // // // //

1 The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the R&R. (Doc. 32.) 2 The Court notes that a certificate of appealability is not required in this case. See Harrison v. 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). 1 IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32) is accepted and adopted in full. 2. Petitioner’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 34) is overruled. 3. Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition (Docs. 1, 3), Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 12), and Motion for Issuance of Subpoena (Doc. 20), are denied, and this case is dismissed with prejudice. 4. All other pending motions (Docs. 17, 33) are denied as moot. 5. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this matter. Dated this 10th day of February, 2026.

f Jennifer G. Z&ps Chiet United States District Judge

_3-