Rohrbaugh v. Von Blanckensee ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Randy L Rohrbaugh, No. CV-20-00295-TUC-RCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Barbara Von Blanckensee, 13 Defendant. 14 15 On July 18, 2022, Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommended the Court dismiss Petitioner 17 Randy L. Rohrbaugh's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Title 28, United States 18 Code, Section 2241. (Doc. 19.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days 19 from the date of the R&R to file any objections. No objections have been filed and the 20 mailed R&R was returned to the Clerk's Office as undeliverable. (Doc. 20.) 21 The Court, on multiple occasions, warned Petitioner that it was Petitioner’s 22 responsibility to keep his address current, and that failure to do so may result in 23 dismissal. (Doc. 3 at 2; Doc. 7 at 2; Doc. 11 at 5–6.) The Court does not have an 24 affirmative obligation to locate Plaintiff. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th 25 Cir. 1988) (“A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised 26 of any changes to his mailing address.”); see also LRCiv 83.3 (plaintiff who is 27 incarcerated must serve notice of change of address within seven days of the date of the 28 change). The Court, therefore, considers this matter despite the undeliverable mail. 2 If neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the 3|| District Court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s decision under any 4|| specified standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the || statute for review of a magistrate judge’s recommendation “does not preclude further || review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or 7\| any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. 8 The Court has reviewed and considered the Petition (Doc. 1), Judge Ferraro's 9|| screening orders (Docs. 3, 7, 11), the Government’s response (Docs. 17), and the R&R || (Doc. 19). The Court finds the R&R well-reasoned and agrees with Judge Ferraro's 11 || conclusions. 12 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the R&R is ADOPTED (Doc. 19) and Petitioner | Randy L. Rohrbaugh's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Title 28, United States 14) Code, Section 2241is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall docket || accordingly and close the case file in this matter. 16 Dated this 5th day of August, 2022. 17 18 19 Dp N- 20 Honorable Raner ©. Collins 21 senior United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-