Sohal-Kulvinder v. Kane
ORDER - that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 13) is accepted. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2251 (Doc. # 1). The Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 9/2/08. (KMG)
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 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Burns (Doc. # 13) regarding petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. # 1). The R&R recommends that the Petition be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at page 8 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). Both parties filed objections. (Doc. # 14, 15.) Respondent has filed a response to Petitioner's Objection. (Doc. # 16.) The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the v. Katrina S. Kane, Respondent. Singh H. Sohal-Kulvinder, Petitioner, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 08-0129 PHX-NVW (MB) ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
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
Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules the parties' objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate"). The Court notes that the government has obtain new travel papers to Indian for Petitioner and he was due to have traveled there August 26, 2008. (Doc. # 16 & Ech. 1.) If for any reason he has not traveled, he cannot complaint about the government for it. Insofar as the Magistrate Judge also ruled on any non-dispositive matters, error may not be assigned to any defect in those rulings to the extent that an aggrieved party did not file a timely objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) ("Within 10 days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge's order, a party may serve and file objections to the order; a party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in the magistrate judge's order to which objection was not timely made."). The absence of a timely objection precludes later assignment of error in this court or in any higher court of the non-dispositive rulings of a magistrate judge. Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 13) is accepted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2251 (Doc. # 1). The Clerk shall terminate this action. DATED this 2nd day of September, 2008.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?