Cole v. Arizona, State of 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Charles D Cole,
Petitioner,
v.
Michael Cimino, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-04086-PHX-SMB (DMF)
ORDER
United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine has issued a report and
recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 28) recommending that Petitioner’s “Renewed
Emergency Motion for Interim Relief from Probation” (Doc. 23) be denied. The Court has
now reviewed the R&R, Petitioner’s objections, and the Government’s reply to the
objections de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court
must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation
to which specific objections are made).
Petitioner lodges seven objections at the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. After a de novo
review of the R&R, the Court fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and
conclusions and rejects Petitioner’s objections as meritless. See United States v. Ramos,
65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (noting that in a de novo review a “district court had no
obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection”). Accordingly, the Court
accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b) and overrules Petitioner’s objections. 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
Case 2:25-cv-04086-SMB Document 38 Filed 03/25/26 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
recommendations made by the magistrate”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Doc. 28) is adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s objections (Doc. 30) are overruled.
Dated this 25th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-04086-SMB Document 38 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2 of 2