Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01354/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01354-2/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

 

 Before the Court is Petitioner Arjan Singh’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 

17) his Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in 

Federal Custody (Doc. 1). 

 The Honorable Bridget S. Bade, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report 

and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 22), recommending that the motion to dismiss be 

granted. Judge Bade advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) 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. (Doc. 13 at 9-10) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 6, 72; 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 

Arjan Singh, 

 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Katrina S. Kane, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-14-01354-PHX-SPL (BSB)

ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-01354-SPL Document 26 Filed 01/06/15 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 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is welltaken. The Court will adopt the R&R, grant the motion, and thereby dismiss the petition. 

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:

1. That Magistrate Judge Bade’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is 

accepted and adopted by the Court; 

2. That the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Petitioner’s 

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) and the motion is granted; 

3. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is dismissed; and 

4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 6th day of January, 2015.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01354-SPL Document 26 Filed 01/06/15 Page 2 of 2