Paez-Robles v. Noem 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
Cintia Josefina Paez-Robles,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-01405-PHX-DWL
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 9). The R&R, which was issued on May 28,
2026, recommends that the petition be denied and further provides that “the parties shall
have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to
file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 9 at 4-5.)
Here, no such objections have been filed and the 14-day deadline has expired. Thus,
the Court adopts the R&R. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does
not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual
or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to
those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o
review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are
filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations
Case 2:26-cv-01405-DWL Document 10 Filed 06/22/26 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
de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 9) is accepted,
that the Petition (Doc. 1) is denied, and that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment
accordingly.
Dated this 22nd day of June, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-01405-DWL Document 10 Filed 06/22/26 Page 2 of 2