Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01284/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01284-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1 

2 

3 

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Daljinder Singh, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr.; Janet Napolitano; 

Katrina S. Kane, 

Respondents.

No. CV-12-01284-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 

United States Magistrate Judge Aspey’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 1, 

29. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss the petition as it is now moot. Doc. 29 

at 2. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 14 days to file objections to 

the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the 

right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

not the subject of an objection.”); 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.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is wellCase 2:12-cv-01284-GMS Document 30 Filed 09/21/12 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

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 

taken. The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 36(b)(1) 

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The 

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Magistrate Judge Aspey’s R&R (Doc. 29) is accepted. 

 2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is dismissed with 

prejudice. 

 3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

4. Because this case arises under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, no ruling on a certificate 

of appealability is required. 

 Dated this 21st day of September, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-01284-GMS Document 30 Filed 09/21/12 Page 2 of 2