Opinion
CV-23-02564-PHX-GMS
10-11-2024
Michael James Martinez, Petitioner, v. KJ Monarez, Respondent.
ORDER
G. MURRAY ENOW, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles (Doc. 12) regarding petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that the Petition be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 6 (citing Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)).
The R&R mailed to Petitioner was returned as undeliverable on August 20, 2024 (Doc. 13). On September 13, 2024, the Court issued an Order directing the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the R&R (Doc. 12) and the Court's September 13, 2024 Order (Doc. 14) to Petitioner at his home confinement address and to the Director at Oceanside RCC. Petitioner was ordered to file and serve a notice of change of address and the Court extended the time to file an objection to the R&R to October 7, 2024.
Plaintiff has failed to file a notice of change of address and no objections were filed.
Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the Magistrate Judge's determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) (“A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy [of the magistrate's order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).
Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 12) is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner at his home confinement address as set forth below:
Michael James Martinez
3826 49th Street
San Diego, CA 92105
and
Dr. Bridget Burden, Director
Oceanside RCC
551 S. 35th Street
San Diego, CA 92113
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action.