Thomas v. Hudson

Opinion

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

9 Corey J Thomas, No. CV-24-00451-TUC-JCH

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 B. Hudson,

13 Respondent. 14 15 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Lynette C. Kimmins’s Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”). Doc. 23. Judge Kimmins recommends denying the Petition. 17 Id. at 5. The deadline for either party to object to the R&R was August 20, 2025. See id. 18 at 5–6. Neither party objects to the R&R. See generally docket. 19 If no objections are filed, the district judge is not required to review the magistrate 20 judge’s R&R under any specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 21 (1985). However, the district judge may conduct further review, “sua sponte or at the 22 request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The advisory 23 committee’s notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen 24 no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on 25 the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. 26 R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. 27 Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). 28 The Court has reviewed and considered the Petition (Doc. 1), the Response and exhibits (Doc. 18), Petitioner’s Reply (Doc. 22), and the R&R (Doc. 23). The Court finds 2|| the R&R is well-reasoned and adopts Judge Kimmins’s findings and conclusions that the 3 || Petition should be denied because the claim is without merit. 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED ADOPTING IN FULL the R&R (Doc. 23). 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition (Doc. 1) and dismissing this 7\| matter. The Clerk of the Court shall docket this matter accordingly. 8 Dated this 26th day of August, 2025. 9 10 f fy . | 12 / / John C. Hinderaker 3 _/United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-