Aduord v. Lynch et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 18 ) is accepted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment dismissing Petitioners Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1 ) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 11/18/15. (KGM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Rebham Pero Aduord,

10

Petitioner,

11

ORDER

vs.

12

No. CV-15-01237-PHX-NVW (BSB)

Loretta E. Lynch, et al.,

13
14

Respondents.
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

15

Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade (Doc. 18) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of

16

Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that

17

Respondents Saldana, Homan, Gurule, and Giles be dismissed. The Court also

18

recommends that the Petition be denied because this Court lacks authority to review the

19

IJ’s discretionary bond determinations, Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative

20

remedies, and because Petitioner’s detention during removal proceedings does not

21

warrant § 2241 relief and that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The

22

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the

23
24
25
26
27
28

R&R. (R&R at 8 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 and 72)). No
objections were filed.
Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the
Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003);

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any
review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a
timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the
rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A
party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a
copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not
timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir.
1996); Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).
Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and
finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition. 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”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Doc. 18) is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment
dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (Doc. 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action.
Dated this 18th day of November, 2015.

20
21
22
Neil V. Wake
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

-2