Maldonado #141895 v. Thornell 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
Raul L Maldonado,
Petitioner,
v.
Ryan Thornell, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-00121-TUC-AMM
ORDER
On December 18, 2025, Magistrate Judge Lynnette C. Kimmins issued a Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court dismiss the Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 21.) Judge Kimmins notified the parties they had fourteen (14)
days to file any written objections to the proposed findings and recommendation. (Id. at
9.) Neither party filed an objection, and the time to do so has now passed.
A district court is 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); 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).
Case 4:25-cv-00121-AMM Document 22 Filed 01/07/26 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
The Court has reviewed Judge Kimmins’s R&R, the parties’ briefs, 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.
21.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is DISMISSED. (Doc. 1.) The
Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because
reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 478, 484 (2000).
Dated this 6th day of January, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00121-AMM Document 22 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 2