Jorgensen #308468 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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
James Martin Jorgensen,
Petitioner,
v.
Ryan Thornell, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-24-08244-PCT-SHD
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.
1). The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Petition be denied and dismissed with
prejudice because Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is untimely. (Doc. 9.)
Neither party has objected to the R&R and the time for filing objections has run.
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that
the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de
novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263
F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes
that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not
otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d
1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the
Case 3:24-cv-08244-SHD Document 15 Filed 11/07/25 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
[Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are
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) (emphasis added); see also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).
There being no objections,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 9) is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition in this case is denied and
dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases and Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, in the event
Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a certificate of appealability
because dismissal of the petition is based on a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason
would not find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000).
Dated this 6th day of November, 2025.
Case 3:24-cv-08244-SHD Document 15 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 2