Castillo v. Unknown Party et al

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
Yoandy Carrodeguas Castillo,
Petitioner,
v.
Unknown Party, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-02798-PHX-SHD
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred
issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Petition be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 22.) 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 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.’”); see also 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
Case 2:25-cv-02798-SHD Document 25 Filed 11/19/25 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
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 objection having been filed,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted; the
Petition is denied and dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court shall enter
judgment accordingly.1
Dated this 18th day of November, 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.3rd 878, 879 (9th Cir. 1997).
Case 2:25-cv-02798-SHD Document 25 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 2