Clayburn v. Gunther

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
Justin Clayburn,
Petitioner,
v.
Jason Gunther,
Respondent.
No. CV-25-00967-PHX-MTL
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Justin Clayburn’s Petition (Doc. 1) and United States
Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc.
15). The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the amended petition without
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On an alternative basis, the R&R
recommends dismissal of the Petition on the merits.
The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file
objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a
waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Neither party filed objections, which relieves the Court
of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . .
of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district
judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to.”).
Case 2:25-cv-00967-MTL Document 16 Filed 04/14/26 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
The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken.
Petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and he fails to satisfy his
burden that doing so would be futile. As for the merits, the Court agrees with the R&R that
the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A) forecloses Petitioner’s argument because
the triggering date for earned time credits is successful participation in “evidence-based
recidivism reduction programming or productive activities.” (Doc. 15 at 4 (quoting 18
U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A).)
The Court will accept the R&R in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating
that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge
may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or
return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 15) is ACCEPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED and
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment
accordingly and terminate this case.
Dated this 14th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-00967-MTL Document 16 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 2