Ordonez v. Rokosky 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
Gilda Ordonez,
Petitioner,
v.
Eric Rokosky, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-02664-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. 13). The R&R, which was issued on May 29,
2026, recommends that the petition be dismissed without prejudice and further provides
that “the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this
recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 13
at 3-4.)
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)
Case 2:26-cv-02664-DWL Document 17 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
(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations
de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 13) is accepted,
that the Petition (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice, and that the Clerk of Court shall
enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 22nd day of June, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-02664-DWL Document 17 Filed 06/22/26 Page 2 of 2