Singh v. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security et al

Filing 15

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)

Download PDF
1 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Salwinder Singh, No. CV-16-00790-PHX-DJH Petitioner, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al., 13 14 15 Respondents. This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of 16 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 4) and the Report and 17 Recommendation (“R & R”) issued on October 31, 2016, by United States Magistrate 18 Judge David K. Duncan (Doc. 13). Since the filing of his Petition, Petitioner has received 19 the relief he sought therein, i.e., he received a second bond hearing and has been released 20 from custody. Therefore, in its response to the Amended Petition, Respondents filed a 21 Notice of Release and Suggestion of Mootness. 22 Amended Petition should be denied as moot insofar as it challenged [petitioner] Singh’s 23 continued detention, and should be denied for lack of jurisdiction insofar as it challenged 24 and/or sought review of [his] credible fear claims.” (Doc. 12 at 4:15-18). Respondents “suggest[ed] that the 25 Agreeing with Respondents, that the “Court did not have jurisdiction to order a 26 second credible fear hearing[,]” and that Petitioner had “received all of the relief that this 27 Court could have ordered[,]” Judge Duncan recommended dismissing the Amended 28 Petition as moot. (Doc. 13 at 1:19-23). Not surprisingly, Petitioner did not file any 1 specific written objections to the R & R, as he was entitled to do, and the time to do so 2 has passed. 3 Absent any objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and 4 recommendations in the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The 5 relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U. relevant provision of the Federal 6 Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all 7 . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 8 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge 9 must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 10 properly objected to.”). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with 11 its recommendation. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R, and dismiss the Petition 12 as moot and without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may 13 accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 14 the magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same). 15 Accordingly, 16 IT IS ORDERED ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING as an Order of this Court 17 Magistrate Judge Duncan's R & R (Doc. 13); 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE the 19 Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in 20 Federal Custody (Doc. 4); and 21 22 23 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. Dated this 15th day of November, 2016. 24 25 26 27 Honorable Diane J. Humetewa United States District Judge 28 -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?