Yoandy Carrodeguas Castillo v. Unknown Party, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02798
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Yoandy Carrodeguas Castillo, No. CV-25-02798-PHX-SHD

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Unknown Party, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred 17 issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Petition be dismissed 18 without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 22.) The time for filing objections has 19 run, and neither party filed objections. 20 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 22 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 23 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 24 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. 25 Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 26 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 27 otherwise.’”); see also Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 28 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions 1|| of the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object’). District 2|| 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) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (‘[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those 5 || portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”’). 6 No objection having been filed, 7 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted; the 8 || Petition is denied and dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.! 10 Dated this 18th day of November, 2025. 11 12 / 13

H le Sharad H. Desai 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Because the Petition was filed pursuant to § 2241, no certificate of appealability is necessary. See Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm ‘n, 114 F.3rd 878, 879 (9th Cir. 1497),

_2-