Gago de Medeiros v. Gonzales

Filing 107

ORDER accepting Report and Recommendations 93 and denying as moot 106 Motion for Extension of Time. The petition 32 in this case is denied and dismissed as moot and the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 1/7/10.(LAD, )

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Julian Gago do Medeiros, Petitioner, vs. Eric J. Holder, Jr.; et al., Respondents.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 06-816-PHX-JAT ORDER

Pending before this Court is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On August 19, 2009, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the Petition in this case be denied and dismiss as moot because the Government offered Petitioner the relief to which he was entitled, specifically a bond hearing. Petitioner moved for and received six extensions of time to file objections to the R&R. On November 27, 2009, Petitioner filed another request for extension of time to file objections. In this request, Petitioner sought until December 17, 2009 to file his objections (Doc. #106). December 17, 2009 has now passed and Petitioner has neither filed objections, nor sought a further extension of time. In reviewing an R&R, 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

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

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. ReynaTapia, 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.'"). 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."). In this case, no objections have been filed, and the time sought to file objections has elapsed. Therefore, the Court will accept and adopt the R&R. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for extension of time to December 17, 2009 to file objections (Doc. #106) is denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. #93) is accepted and adopted; the Petition in this case (Doc. #32) is denied and dismissed as moot and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. DATED this 7th day of January, 2010.

-2-