Ivanov v. Rivas et al

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Evgenii Ivanov,
Petitioner,
v.
David R Rivas, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-04160-PHX-SHD
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was
referred issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Amended
Petition be denied and dismissed. (Doc. 14.) The time for filing objections has run, and
neither party filed objections.
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that
the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de
novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.
Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that
de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not
otherwise.’”); see also Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt.,
589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions
Case 2:25-cv-04160-SHD Document 15 Filed 05/27/26 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
of the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object”). District
courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the
subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).
No objection having been filed,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is accepted; the
Amended Petition is DENIED and DISMISSED without prejudice, but without leave to
amend given that amendment at this time would be futile based on the record before the
Court. The Clerk of Court shall issue judgment accordingly and close this case.
Dated this 27th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-04160-SHD Document 15 Filed 05/27/26 Page 2 of 2