ORDER

JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") from the Magistrate Judge recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (as Amended and as construed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254) be denied. (Doc. 35 at 1-2 and n. 1). Neither party has objected to the R&R and the time for objecting has expired.

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, 1226 (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.'"); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court "must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge's] recommendations to which the parties object."). 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.").

Based on the foregoing and because there is no objection,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 35) is accepted, the Amended Petition is denied and dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. The "Motion Requesting an Order for Extradition from ADOC to U.S. B.O.P" (Doc. 33) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, a certificate of appealability is denied (see Doc. 35 at 9).