Jackson-Mackay 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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
David A Jackson-Mackay,
Petitioner,
v.
Jason Gunther,
Respondent.
No. CV-25-02103-PHX-JAT
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1 at 1). This case was referred to Magistrate Judge
Bachus, who issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the petition
be denied in its entirety and dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 22 at 16). The R&R informed
the parties that they had 14 days from the date of the recommendation—that is, March 5,
2026—to file specific written objections with the Court. (Doc. 22 at 16). The objection
deadline has passed, and neither party filed objections to the R&R.
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.’”);
Case 2:25-cv-02103-JAT Document 24 Filed 03/27/26 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
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 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 objections having been filed,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted. The
petition is denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter
judgment accordingly.1
Dated this 27th day of March, 2026.
1 Because Petitioner is in federal custody and filed his petition under 28 U.S.C. §
2241, a certificate of appealability is not required. See Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 114
F.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir. 1997); Close v. Thomas, 653 F.3d 970, 974 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“Although Petitioners do not have Certificates of Appealability, a COA is not required to
appeal the denial of a § 2241 petition filed by a person in federal custody.”).
Case 2:25-cv-02103-JAT Document 24 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 2