Sy v. Kane

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, the Magistrate Judge's 10 Report and Recommendation is accepted as follows: Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is denied as moot and the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 9/1/11. (REW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Samoeuth Sy,
Petitioner,

10
11

vs.

12
Katrina Kane,
13
Respondent.
14

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

No. CV 11-440-PHX-JAT
ORDER

15
16

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

17

(“Petition”) (Doc. 1). The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred issued a Report

18

and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 10) recommending that the Petition be denied as moot

19

because Petitioner has been removed from the United States.

20

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts

21

the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not

22

required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”

23

(emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

24

banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

25

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise”); see also

26

Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

27

Based on the foregoing,

28

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10)

1

is accepted as follows: Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied as

2

moot and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.1

3

DATED this 1st day of September, 2011.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

The Court need not issue a certificate of appealability because the Petition in this
case was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 114 F.3d
878, 879 (9th Cir. 1997).
-2-