Thomas v. Hudson

Opinion

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

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

B. Hudson,

Respondent. Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Lynette C. Kimmins’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Doc. 23. Judge Kimmins recommends denying the Petition. Id. at 5. The deadline for either party to object to the R&R was August 20, 2025. See id. at 5–6. Neither party objects to the R&R. See generally docket. If no objections are filed, the district judge is not required to review the magistrate judge’s R&R under any specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the district judge may conduct further review, “sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. 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). 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 the R&R is well-reasoned and adopts Judge Kimmins’s findings and conclusions that the Petition should be denied because the claim is without merit. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED ADOPTING IN FULL the R&R (Doc. 23). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition (Doc. 1) and dismissing this 7\| matter. The Clerk of the Court shall docket this matter accordingly. Dated this 26th day of August, 2025. f fy . | / / John C. Hinderaker _/United States District Judge

_2-