Robles v. Unknown Party

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
Raul Michael Robles,
Plaintiff,
v.
Unknown Hodak,
Respondent.
No. CV-25-00278-TUC-SHR
ORDER
On June 6, 2025, Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) On January 22, 2026,
Magistrate Judge James E. Marner issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
recommending the Court deny Petitioner’s Petition. (Doc. 16.) The R&R notified the
parties they had fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R to file any
objections. (Id. at 11.) No objections have been filed.
If neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s decision under any specified
standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (noting a district court need
only review a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is
made). 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 any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.
Case 4:25-cv-00278-SHR Document 17 Filed 04/30/26 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
In this case, the deadline for filing objections has passed. As noted, no objections
have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to file objections despite
the warning from Judge Marner indicating “[f]ailure to file timely objections to any factual
or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s
right to de novo consideration of the issues.” (Doc. 16 at 11.) The Court will adopt the
R&R on that basis. See Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)
(declining to substantively review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
because no objections were filed). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED Magistrate Judge Marner’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.
16) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Doc. 1) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly
and close this case.
Dated this 29th day of April, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00278-SHR Document 17 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 2