Redditt v. Gutierrez

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
Jason C Redditt,
Petitioner,
v.
M. Gutierrez,
Respondent.
No. CV-25-00030-TUC-AMM
ORDER
On March 27, 2026, Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court deny self-represented Petitioner
Jason C. Redditt’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 29.) Judge
Macdonald also recommends the Court deny Petitioner’s Motion to Add Petitioner’s
Declaration, Declaration in Support of Temporary Restraining Order, Declaration for Entry
of Default, and Motion to Expand Record. (Id.) Judge Macdonald notified the parties they
had fourteen (14) days to file any written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. (Id. at 17.) Neither party filed an objection, and the time to do so has
now passed.1
A district court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is
1 On April 6, 2026, Petitioner filed a “Declaration of Marcus Jones.” (Doc. 30.) Because
the Declaration does not address or specifically object to the R&R, the Court will review
the R&R for clear error. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.
2003) (en banc) (the Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which specific
objection is made); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (requiring objections be “specific [and]
written”); see also Prior v. Ryan, CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D.
Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (the Court reviews portions of the R&R that are not objected to for
clear error).
Case 4:25-cv-00030-AMM Document 31 Filed 04/14/26 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
not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.”). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory
Committee Notes 1983 Addition. A district judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 29), the parties’ briefs
(Docs. 1, 16), Petitioner’s motions (Docs. 21, 25–26, 28), and the record. The Court finds
no clear error and agrees with the findings and recommendation.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 29.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED. (Doc. 1.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion to Add Petitioner’s
Declaration” is DENIED. (Doc. 21.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Add Declaration in
Support of Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. (Doc. 25.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Declaration for Entry of Default”
is DENIED. (Doc. 26.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Expand Record is
DENIED. (Doc. 28.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court
shall docket accordingly, term any pending motions, and close this case.
Dated this 14th day of April, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00030-AMM Document 31 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 2