Romo-Jimenez v. Holder
Filing
56
ORDER signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/5/2014 adopting 47 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and directing service of order on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MIGUEL ANGEL ROMO-JIMENEZ,
12
Petitioner,
13
Case No. 1:13-cv-2081-AWI-SAB
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
v.
(ECF Nos. 47, 52)
14
15
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF ORDER
ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Respondent.
16
17
18
Following a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision to deny derivative
19 citizenship through his mother, Petitioner filed a petition for review of the BIA decision with the
20 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 30, 2011. Romo-Jimenez v.
21 Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 11-73647 (9th Cir.) On August 27, 2013, the Ninth Circuit filed a
22 memorandum and order transferring this action to the United States District Court for the
23 Northern District of California for an evidentiary hearing to determine Petitioner’s legal custody
24 during the time period at issue. Following transfer to the Eastern District by stipulation of the
25 parties, the matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge.
26
On June 18, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which
27 was served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the Findings and
28 Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. After receiving an extension of time,
1
1 Petitioner filed an Objection under seal on July 28, 2014. Respondent filed a Response to
2 Petitioner’s Objection on August 18, 2014.
3
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
4 a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
5 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
As
6 explained more fully in the Findings and Recommendations, the only issue before the Court is
7 who had legal authority over Petitioner during the relevant time frame. The objections offer no
8 reason for the Court to disagree with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that, under
9 California law, his probation officer and the California Youth Authority had legal custody of
10 Petitioner.
11
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
12
1.
The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 18, 2014, is adopted in full; and
13
2.
The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on the United States Court
14
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17 Dated: November 5, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?