Opinion
CV-22-00505-TUC-RM
10-03-2023
Daniel Martinez, Petitioner, v. M. Gutierrez, Respondent.
ORDER
HONORABLE ROSEMARY MÁRQUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner Daniel Martinez filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“§ 2241 Petition”), seeking the application of “approximately 250 days” of earned time credits under the First Step Act. (Doc. 14.) On July 14, 2023, Magistrate Judge Angela M. Martinez issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 19) recommending that this Court dismiss the § 2241 Petition because Petitioner's request that the Bureau of Prisons apply his time credits fails on the merits. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension, in which he appeared to request an extension of time to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 20.) By Order dated August 7, 2023 (Doc. 21), the Court granted Petitioner's Motion for Extension (Doc. 20) and extended Petitioner's deadline to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation to August 22, 2023. To date, Petitioner has not filed an objection or any additional filings.
A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a magistrate judge's “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee's notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Martinez's Report and Recommendation, the parties' briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Martinez's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted and adopted in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 14) is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.