Garcia 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
Irvin Villegas Garcia,
Petitioner,
v.
Unknown Party, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-24-03062-PHX-DWL
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 39). The R&R, which was issued
on October 10, 2025, recommends “that Grounds One and Two be denied on the merits,
Ground Three be dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court be directed to
terminate this matter.” (Doc. 39 at 10.) The R&R further provides that “[t]he parties shall
have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which
to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 23 at 17.)
Here, no such objections have been filed and the 14-day deadline has expired. Thus,
the Court adopts the R&R. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does
not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual
or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to
those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o
review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are
Case 2:24-cv-03062-DWL Document 41 Filed 11/13/25 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
filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations
de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 39) is accepted,
that the Amended Petition (Doc. 6) is denied in part and dismissed without prejudice in
part, and that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Dated this 12th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:24-cv-03062-DWL Document 41 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 2