Mendoza v. Unknown Party

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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Robert Charles Mendoza,
Petitioner,
v.
Unknown Party,
Respondent.
No. CV-25-00221-TUC-JGZ
ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States
Magistrate Judge Michael A. Ambri that recommends dismissing Petitioner’s habeas
petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 13.) No objections to the Report and
Recommendation 	have 	been 	filed, 	and 	the 	time 	for 	filing 	objections 	has 	expired.
Accordingly, the Court will not consider any objections or new evidence.
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). “[T]he 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). 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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
//
//
Case 4:25-cv-00221-JGZ Document 14 Filed 01/07/26 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
As thoroughly explained by Magistrate Judge Ambri, the Court lacks jurisdiction to
hear 	Petitioner’s 	claim. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	will 	adopt 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation in full.1
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Magistrate 	Judge 	Ambri’s 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	(Doc. 	13) 	is
accepted and adopted;
2. 	Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and this case is dismissed with
prejudice;
3. 	The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this
matter.
Dated this 7th day of January, 2026.
1 The Court notes that a certificate of appealability is not required in this case. See
Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (there is no “statutory basis for
imposing a COA requirement on legitimate § 2241 petitions . . .” filed by federal prisoners).
Case 4:25-cv-00221-JGZ Document 14 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 2