Baca v. United States of America

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
Juan Antonio Baca,
Petitioner,
v.
United States of America, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-00276-TUC-JCH
ORDER
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Lynette C. Kimmins’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 29). Judge Kimmins recommends denying Petitioner’s
Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See id. at 6. Neither
party objects to the R&R. See generally Docket.
A district court reviews objected-to portions of an R&R de novo. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617
(9th Cir. 1989). Failure to timely object may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de
novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 72(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court
need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept
the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s
note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.
1999).
Case 4:25-cv-00276-JCH Document 30 Filed 11/26/25 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
After independent review, the Court is satisfied that Judge Kimmins’s
recommendation is sound. The Court will adopt the R&R in full.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED adopting in full the R&R (Doc. 29).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s Amended Petition (Doc. 5).
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
Dated this 24th day of November, 2025.
Case 4:25-cv-00276-JCH Document 30 Filed 11/26/25 Page 2 of 2