Rene v. Gutierrez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Lukner Rene, No. CV-23-00214-TUC-SHR 10 Petitioner, Order Accepting R&R 11 v. 12 M. Gutierrez, 13 Respondent. 14 15 On October 17, 2023, Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommended the Court deny the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 17 Petition because Petitioner failed to demonstrate the alleged lack of notice of incident 18 reports caused him prejudice and there is an “incognizable interest in loss of email 19 privileges.” (Doc. 14 at 8–10.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days 20 after being served with a copy of the R&R to file any objections. (Id. at 10.) No objections 21 have been filed. 22 If neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the 23 District Court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s decision under any specified 24 standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. 25 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (district court only needs to 26 review magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made). 27 However, the statute for review of a magistrate judge’s recommendation “does not preclude 28 further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo || or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. 2 In this case, the deadline for filing objections has seemingly passed. A copy of the || R&R was mailed to Petitioner on October 17, 2023. As noted, no objections have been 4|| filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do so despite the warning from 5 || Judge Macdonald indicating “[flailure to file timely objections to any factual or legal 6 || determination of the Magistrate Judge may result in waiver of the right of review.” (Doc. 7\| 14 at 10.) Therefore, the Court may accept the R&R on that basis alone. See Schmidt v. 8 || Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (district court declined to review 9|| the magistrate judge’s report because no objections were filed). Nonetheless, the Court || finds the R&R well-reasoned and agrees with Judge Macdonald’s conclusions. 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED Magistrate Judge Macdonald's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is ACCEPTED. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this case. 17 Dated this 30th day of November, 2023. 18 19 /) Aa: hod 7] Honorable Scott H, Rash _/ United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-