Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00756/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00756-1/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 

Manvinder Singh, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Jeh Johnson, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-16-00756-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge 

David Duncan, which recommends dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus without prejudice. (Doc. 13.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they 

had fourteen 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)). 

 Neither party filed 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 agrees with Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-00756-DLR Document 15 Filed 08/29/16 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 

Duncan’s recommendations. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition 

without prejudice. 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)(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.”). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Duncan’s R&R (Doc. 13) is 

ACCEPTED, and Petitioner’s petition is DISMISSED. 

 Dated this 29th day of August, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-00756-DLR Document 15 Filed 08/29/16 Page 2 of 2