Green v. Rhodes
Filing
20
ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. It is further ordered dismissing the Petition (Doc. 1 ). It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment accordingly. It is further ordered that in the event the Plaintiff, proceeding here in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, files an appeal, the Court finds the appeal is not taken in good faith because an appeal would be frivolous as there is no substantial argument to be made contrary to this Court's determination recorded here. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 2/24/2020. (ARC)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
David D Green,
Petitioner,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-17-00570-TUC-DCB
RL Rhodes,
13
Respondent.
14
15
This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich, pursuant to Rules
16
of Practice for the United States District Court, District of Arizona (Local Rules), Rule
17
(Civil) 72.1(a). He issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R (Doc. 18)) on December
18
10, 2019. He recommends the Petition be dismissed because the Petitioner, who was
19
incarcerated at the time he filed for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, has now been released.
20
“Because Petitioner has already been released from custody, the Petition [challenging the
21
calculation of his projected release date] is now moot and dismissal is appropriate. (R&R
22
(Doc. 18) at 1-2 (citing North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971)).
23
The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R&R of a Magistrate Judge, are
24
set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
25
district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
26
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. §
27
636(b)(1). When the parties object to a R&R, “‘[a] judge of the [district] court shall make
28
a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.’”
1
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). When no
2
objections are filed, the district court does not need to review the R&R de novo. Wang v.
3
Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
4
1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc).
5
The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed they had 14 days to file
6
written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), see also, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 72
7
(party objecting to the recommended disposition has fourteen (14) days to file specific,
8
written objections). To date, no objections have been filed.
9
While there are no objections and review has, therefore, been waived, the Court
10
nevertheless reviews at a minimum, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law.
11
Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d
12
449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) (conclusions of law by a magistrate judge reviewed de novo);
13
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to object standing alone will
14
not ordinarily waive question of law, but is a factor in considering the propriety of finding
15
waiver)). The Court finds the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned, without any clear
16
error in law or fact. See United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989).
17
The Court accepts and adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
18
§ 636(b)(1). For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court dismisses the Petition.
19
Accordingly,
20
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is adopted as the
21
opinion of the Court.
22
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the Petition (Doc. 1).
23
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment
24
accordingly.
25
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event the Plaintiff, proceeding here in
26
forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, files an appeal, the Court finds the appeal is not
27
taken in good faith because an appeal would be frivolous as there is no substantial argument
28
-2-
1
to be made contrary to this Court’s determination recorded here. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) and
2
FRAP 24(a); Cruz v. Hauck, 404 U.S. 59, 62 (1971).
3
Dated this 24th day of February, 2020.
4
5
6
7
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?