Cham v. Gurule

Filing 18

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING as an Order of this Court, Magistrate Judge Burns' 17 Report and Recommendation. ORDERED dismissing without prejudice, the 1 Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody. ORDERED denying as moot, Petitioner's 12 Motion for Immediate Release. ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 2/17/2015. (LFIG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Mustapha Cham, No. CV-14-01938-PHX-DJH Petitioner, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Jon M. Gurule, 13 Respondent. 14 15 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for 16 a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1), and the Report and 17 Recommendation (“R&R”) issued on January 23, 2015, by United States Magistrate 18 Judge Michelle H. Burns (Doc. 17). Also pending before the Court is Petitioner's Motion 19 for Immediate Release (Doc. 12), which the Magistrate Judge accurately described as 20 "duplicative of [Petitioner's] habeas petition." R & R (Doc. 17) at 19-20. 21 Since the filing of his Petition, the United States Immigration and Customs 22 Enforcement ("ICE") agency granted Petitioner release from its custody. R & R (Doc. 23 17) at 2:5-7. As the R & R accurately explains, that release moots the Petition. (Id. at 24 2:7-10). After Respondent filed a Notice to Court and Suggestion of Mootness based 25 upon Petitioner's release from ICE custody, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order to 26 Show Cause, requiring Petitioner to file a response thereto showing why his Petition 27 should not be dismissed as moot. See Doc. 16. 28 because Petitioner had been granted the relief he sought in his Petition, the Magistrate When Petitioner did not respond, and 1 Judge recommended dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition as moot and without 2 prejudice. R & R (Doc. 17) at 2:16-19. 3 The parties have not filed objections and the time to do so has expired. Absent 4 any objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and recommendations in 5 the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the 6 Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any 7 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); United States v. 8 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The 9 district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that 10 has been properly objected to.”). 11 Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its 12 recommendation. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R, and dismiss the Petition as 13 moot and without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may 14 accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 15 the magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same). 16 17 Additionally, the Court finds that based upon the foregoing Petitioner's Motion for Immediate Release (Doc. 12) is denied as moot. 18 Accordingly, 19 IT IS ORDERED ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING as an Order of this Court 20 Magistrate Judge Burns' R&R (Doc. 17); 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE the 22 Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal 23 Custody (Doc. 1); 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot Petitioner's Motion for 25 Immediate Release (Doc. 12); and 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// -2- 1 2 3 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. Dated this 17th day of February, 2015. 4 5 6 7 Honorable Diane J. Humetewa United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

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?