Opinion
No. CV 05-988-PHX-JAT.
November 10, 2005
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #14) issued by the Magistrate Judge recommending that the Petition in this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Petitioner was not in custody at the time the Petition was filed. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.
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, 1126 (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.'"). 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) ("the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.").
No objections having been filed,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #14) is accepted and adopted, the Petition in this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.