Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01022/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01022-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Juan Jose Maravilla-Alvarez,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Alberto G. Gonzales,

Respondent. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1022-PHX-SMM (CRP) 

ORDER

On November 2, 2006, Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle filed a Report and

Recommendation advising this Court that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”) (Dkt. 1) is denied on the grounds that (i)

Petitioner’s detention is authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c); (ii) 8 U.S.C. § 1231 does not yet

apply; (iii) The holding in Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2005) is not controlling in

this case; and (iv) The indefinite duration of a once lawfully admitted alien who was refused

admission upon his return to the United States does not violation the Constitution (Shaughnessy

v. United States ex.rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953)). See Dkt. 16. To date, Petitioner has not

filed objections to Judge Pyle’s Report and Recommendation.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court must

“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391,

Case 2:06-cv-01022-SMM Document 18 Filed 12/05/06 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 -

1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983)). 

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives his right to

challenge the Magistrate’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate’s legal

conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.

1998) (failure to object to Magistrate’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in

considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980)).

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed Petitioner’s Petition and, thereafter, having reviewed the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the record de novo, and no objections having been

made by Petitioner thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle. (Dkt. 16.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED. (Dkt. 1.) The Clerk of Court shall terminate this

action accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this

Order to all parties as well as to Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle.

DATED this 4th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01022-SMM Document 18 Filed 12/05/06 Page 2 of 2