NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ORDER

DIANE J. HUMETEWA, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on pro se Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 14) of United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine, filed on September 7, 2016. Petitioner's only ground for relief was "that the Bureau of Prisons failed to credit his sentence with the correct amount of `Jail Credit.'" (Doc. 14 at 1:20-21). After a thorough and sound analysis, Judge Fine concluded that "the Bureau of Prisons ha[d] calculated Petitioner's sentence correctly." (Id. at 6:24). Judge Fine thus recommends denial of the Petition and dismissal.

In so recommending, Judge Fine explicitly advised the parties that they had "fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of" the R&R "within which to file specific written objections with the Court." (Doc. 14 at 7:7-8) (citations omitted). Judge Fine further explicitly advised that "[f]ailure to file timely objections to the" R&R "may result in the acceptance of the [R&R] by the District Court without further review." (Id. at 7:10-13) (citation omitted). Judge Fine was equally explicit that "[f]ailure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the" R&R. (Id. at 7:14-16) (citation omitted).

In accordance with the foregoing, the parties had until September 26, 2016 by which to timely file objections to the R&R. The parties did not do so. Absent any timely objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), "does not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection."); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R, United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) ("Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct")[.]"). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R, deny the Petition and dismiss this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) ("A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge."); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Fine's R&R (Doc. 14) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING and DISMISSING the Petition for Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because dismissal Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly.