Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02495/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02495-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
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

Manuel Reyes-Alcaraz, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Alberto R. Gonzales, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2495-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Edward Voss’s Report

and Recommendation (“R&R”). Doc. #15. The Magistrate Judge recommends that

the Court transfer this action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Nint h Circuit

pursuant to the REAL ID Act of 2005. Id. at 3-4 (citing REAL ID Act § 106(a)(1)(B),

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5)); Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 585, 587 (9th Cir. 2005)). The

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file object ions to the R&R

and that the failure to timely file objections to any determination of the Magistrate Judge

would be considered a waiver of the right to review of such determination. Id. at 3-4 (cit ing

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 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

Case 2:04-cv-02495-DGC Document 17 Filed 11/02/05 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

- 2 -

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

the subject of an object ion.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (“The district judge . . . shall make a de

novo determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disp osition to which

specific written objection has been made[.]”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the

R&R and finds t hat it is well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R and transfer this action

to the Ninth Circuit Court of App eals. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(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) (same). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Edward Voss’s R&R (Doc. #15) is accepted.

2. The Clerk of Court shall transfer this action to the Unit ed St at es Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DATED this 31st day of October, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02495-DGC Document 17 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 2