Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01177/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01177-0/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Eva Isabel Gonzalez Romo,

Petitioner, 

v. 

United States Department of Homeland 

Security, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-16-1177-PHX-ROS (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Eva Isabel Gonzalez Romo filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 arguing that she is entitled to another bond hearing.1

 (Doc. 

4) Respondents have informed the Court that Romo had a bond hearing and has been 

released from custody. (Doc. 15-1) In other words, Romo has received all of the relief 

that this Court could have ordered. 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Eva Isabel Gonzalez Romo’s 

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed as moot.

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 

 

1

 Romo’s other claims did not survive the screening process. (Doc. 6) 

Case 2:16-cv-01177-ROS Document 16 Filed 12/20/16 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 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 

further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 19th day of December, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-01177-ROS Document 16 Filed 12/20/16 Page 2 of 2