Garduno Guevara v. Soto Soto (TV2)

Filing 52

ORDER ACCEPTS 51 Report and Recommendations: The Court therefore ACCEPTS the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (Doc. 51 ) in full pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and ORDERS as follows: The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue a Writ of Attachment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70,ordering the United States Marshals Service to take possession of the Child, and to deliver the Child to the Tennessee Department of Human Services (or similar agency in the state in which the Child is found) for temporary placement, afterwhich said agency shall make the appropriate arrangements with the United States Central Authority for the Child's return to Mexico or to Petitioner, and said agency shall coordinate with Petitioner's counsel and the United States Central Authority to effectuate a smooth transfer of the Child to Petitioner or to Mexico at an appropriate border station. The Court will hold in abeyance ordering Respondent to appear on a date certain to show cause as to why she should not be held in contempt of Court for failing to comply with the Court's prior Orders (Docs. 20 , 22 ), finding that such an order would be futile at this time. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 1/23/2019. (KMK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EUGENIO GARDUNO GUEVARA,
Plaintiff/Petitioner,
v.
ALMA SOTO SOTO,
Defendant/Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

3:15-CV-548-TAV-DCP

ORDER
This civil matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation entered by
Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin, on November 21, 2018 (the “R&R”) [Doc. 51]. Before
the magistrate judge was Petitioner’s Motion for Writ of Body Attachment of Respondent
and Minor Child and for Warrant of Arrest for Respondent [Doc. 43]. In the R&R,
Magistrate Judge Poplin recommends that Petitioner’s motion be granted in part and denied
in part. There have been no timely objections to the R&R, and enough time has passed
since the filing of the R&R to treat any objections as having been waived. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
In particular, the magistrate judge recommends that: (1) Respondent be ordered to
appear before the district judge on a day certain to show cause as to why she should not be
held in contempt of court; and (2) the Clerk of Court be directed to issue a writ of
attachment ordering the United States Marshals Service to take possession of the child and
deliver the child to the Tennessee Department of Human Services for temporary placement,

after which said agency shall make the appropriate arrangement with the United States
Central Authority for the child’s return to Mexico or to Petitioner, and said agency shall
coordinate with Petitioner’s counsel and the United States Central Authority to effectuate
a smooth transfer of the child to Petitioner or to Mexico at an appropriate border station.
After careful review of the matter, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s findings
of fact and is in agreement with the magistrate judge’s recommendations. The Court
therefore ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Doc. 51] in full
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and ORDERS as follows:
1.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue a Writ of
Attachment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70,
ordering the United States Marshals Service to take possession
of the Child, and to deliver the Child to the Tennessee
Department of Human Services (or similar agency in the state
in which the Child is found) for temporary placement, after
which said agency shall make the appropriate arrangements
with the United States Central Authority for the Child’s return
to Mexico or to Petitioner, and said agency shall coordinate with
Petitioner’s counsel and the United States Central Authority to
effectuate a smooth transfer of the Child to Petitioner or to
Mexico at an appropriate border station.

2.

The Court will hold in abeyance ordering Respondent to appear
on a date certain to show cause as to why she should not be held
in contempt of Court for failing to comply with the Court’s prior
Orders [Docs. 20, 22], finding that such an order would be futile
at this time.

ENTER:

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2