Singh v. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; accepting and adopting as an Order of this Court Magistrate Judge Duncan's Report and Recommendation 13 ; dismissing without prejudice the Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody 4 ; the Clerk shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 11/15/16. (REW)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security, et al.,
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 (Doc. 4) and the Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) issued on October 31, 2016, by United States Magistrate
Judge David K. Duncan (Doc. 13). Since the filing of his Petition, Petitioner has received
the relief he sought therein, i.e., he received a second bond hearing and has been released
from custody. Therefore, in its response to the Amended Petition, Respondents filed a
Notice of Release and Suggestion of Mootness.
Amended Petition should be denied as moot insofar as it challenged [petitioner] Singh’s
continued detention, and should be denied for lack of jurisdiction insofar as it challenged
and/or sought review of [his] credible fear claims.” (Doc. 12 at 4:15-18).
Respondents “suggest[ed] that the
Agreeing with Respondents, that the “Court did not have jurisdiction to order a
second credible fear hearing[,]” and that Petitioner had “received all of the relief that this
Court could have ordered[,]” Judge Duncan recommended dismissing the Amended
Petition as moot. (Doc. 13 at 1:19-23).
Not surprisingly, Petitioner did not file any
specific written objections to the R & R, as he was entitled to do, and the time to do so
Absent any objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and
recommendations in the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The
relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U. relevant provision of the Federal
Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all
. . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,
328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge
must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to.”). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with
its recommendation. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R, and dismiss the Petition
as moot and without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same).
IT IS ORDERED ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING as an Order of this Court
Magistrate Judge Duncan's R & R (Doc. 13);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE the
Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
Federal Custody (Doc. 4); and
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action
and enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 15th day of November, 2016.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
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?