Smith v. Gunther

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jacob P Smith,
Petitioner,
v.
Jason Gunther,
Respondent.
No. CV-24-01790-PHX-JAT
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 14). The petition asserts three grounds for relief. (Doc.
14 at 7, 10, 12). The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the petition be denied as to Ground 1 and
denied and dismissed without prejudice as to Grounds Two and Three. (Doc. 22 at 10). The
Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
regarding Grounds 2 and 3 but also concluded that both grounds for relief failed on the
merits. (Doc. 22 at 8–10). The time for filing objections has run, and neither party filed
objections.
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). It is “clear that
the 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); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d
Case 2:24-cv-01790-JAT Document 23 Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo
review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not otherwise.’”);
Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th
Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s]
recommendations to which the parties object”). 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) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report [and recommendation]
. . . to which objection is made.”).
No objections having been filed,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted; the
petition is denied as to Ground 1 and denied and dismissed without prejudice as to
Grounds Two and Three. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.1
Dated this 28th day of October, 2025.
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.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir. 1997).
Case 2:24-cv-01790-JAT Document 23 Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 2