Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00401/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00401-1/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

TERMPSREF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Vinod Kumar, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Katrina S. Kane, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-0401-PHX-GMS (JRI)

ORDER

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

United States Magistrate Judge Irwin’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Dkt. ## 1,

16. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss the petition. Dkt. # 16 at 5. The

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten 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 6 (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 well-taken. The Court will

accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district

Case 2:09-cv-00401-GMS Document 18 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

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 Irwin’s R&R (Dkt. # 16) is ACCEPTED.

2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. # 1) is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE.

3. The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this action.

DATED this 21st day of January, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00401-GMS Document 18 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 2