Chen v. Homeland Security, Department et al

Filing 15

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 . FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 7/1/2009. (LAD)

Download PDF
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 ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) Department of Homeland Security, et al.,) ) ) Respondents. ) ) Qi Yao Chen, No. CV 09-0451-PHX-JAT (JRI) ORDER Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") (Doc. #1) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. #13) recommending that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice. Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection" (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) ("statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise" (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). Accordingly, 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 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #13) is ACCEPTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1) is DENIED; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DATED this 1st day of July, 2009. -2-

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?