Heyward 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Damon Christopher Heyward,
Petitioner,
v.
Jason Gunther,
Respondent.
No. CV-24-02751-PHX-GMS
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey (Doc. 16) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that
Petitioner’s claim be denied and dismissed without prejudice, as Petitioner has not
exhausted his administrative remedies. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they
had 14 days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72). No objections were filed.
Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the
Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any
review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a
timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the
Case 2:24-cv-02751-GMS Document 17 Filed 01/13/26 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
rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A
party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a
copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not
timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996);
Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).
Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the Court has reviewed the R&R and
finds that it is well taken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny and dismiss the Petition.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Doc.16) is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment
dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (Doc. 1) without prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action.
A request for a certificate of appealability will be denied because Petitioner has not
demonstrated reasonable jurists could find the ruling debatable or jurists could conclude
the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-
El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
Dated this 13th day of January, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-02751-GMS Document 17 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 2