Tommy Gene Jones v. Christopher Moody, et al.

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided October 21, 2025·No. 4:24-cv-00599·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

9 Tommy Gene Jones, No. CV-24-00599-TUC-AMM

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Christopher Moody, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 On October 3, 2025, Magistrate Judge Lynnette C. Kimmins issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court dismiss the Petition for Writ of 17 Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 14.) Judge Kimmins notified the parties they had fourteen (14) 18 days to file any written objections to the proposed findings and recommendation. (Id. at 19 15.) Neither party filed an objection, and the time to do so has now passed. 20 A district court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is 21 not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 22 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those 23 portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 24 objection is made.”). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on 25 the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 26 Advisory Committee Notes 1983 Addition. A district judge may “accept, reject, or 27 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 The Court has reviewed Judge Kimmins’s R&R, the parties’ briefs, and the record. 2|| The Court finds no clear error and agrees with the findings and recommendation. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 14.) 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is 7\| DISMISSED. (Doc. 1.) The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close 8 || this case. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, because 11 |} reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 484 (2000). 13 Dated this 20th day of October, 2025. 14 I Din la be. WT 16 ~ Honorable Angela M. Martinez 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Tommy Gene Jones v. Christopher Moody, et al., (D. Ariz. 2025).

Tommy Gene Jones v. Christopher Moody, et al. (Tommy Gene Jones v. Christopher Moody, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)