Martinez v. Gutierrez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Daniel Martinez, No. CV-22-00505-TUC-RM 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 M. Gutierrez, 13 Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner Daniel Martinez filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“§ 2241 Petition”), seeking the application of 17 “approximately 250 days” of earned time credits under the First Step Act. (Doc. 14.) On 18 July 14, 2023, Magistrate Judge Angela M. Martinez issued a Report and 19 Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 19) recommending that this Court dismiss the § 2241 20 Petition because Petitioner’s request that the Bureau of Prisons apply his time credits fails 21 on the merits. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.1 22 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 23 magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 24 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 25 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 26 1 Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension, in which he appeared to request an extension of time to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 20.) By Order dated 27 August 7, 2023 (Doc. 21), the Court granted Petitioner’s Motion for Extension (Doc. 20) and extended Petitioner’s deadline to file an objection to the Report and 28 Recommendation to August 22, 2023. To date, Petitioner has not filed an objection or any additional filings. 1|| filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 2|| in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) || advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 4|| F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the || district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, 6|| CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation). 8 The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Martinez’s Report and Recommendation, the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Martinez’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted || and adopted in full. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 14) is dismissed. The Clerk of Court 15 || is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 16 Dated this 3rd day of October, 2023. 17 18 20 f a) Z Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ 21 United States District □□□□□ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-