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 

Andrew Charles Jackson, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

J.T. Shartle, 

Respondent. 

No. CV-15-00579-TUC-RCC

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the pro se petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Andrew Charles Jackson (“Petitioner”) and Magistrate 

Judge Ferraro’s July 19, 2017 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending 

dismissal of the petition. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent filed objections to the R&R. 

 The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s R & R as the findings of 

fact and conclusions of law of this Court. 

I. Background 

 The factual and procedural background of this matter are thoroughly detailed in 

the R&R. The Court fully incorporates by reference this section of the R&R. 

II. Discussion 

 The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Thereunder the 

district court may “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 
- 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 

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a 

de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection 

is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 

992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). “[T]he magistrate judge’s decision...is entitled to great 

deference by the district court.” U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 

2001). The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge’s recommendation unless his factual 

findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(A). 

 Here, the parties have not objected to the R & R, which relieves the Court of its 

obligation to review either the factual findings or legal conclusions de novo. See 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.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge 

must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been 

properly objected to.”). 

 After a thorough review of the record, this Court considers the R & R to be 

thorough and well-reasoned. The Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s R&R in its 

entirety. Accordingly, 

... 

... 

... 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s R&R (Doc. 16) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED

 as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court; 
- 3 - 

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 

2. DISMISSING the Petition (Doc. 1). 

 Dated this 3rd day of October, 2017.