Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00528/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00528-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mykola Kyrychay, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Alberto R. Gonzales, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-528-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Petitioner Mykola Kyrychay filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, arguing that her

detention pending removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) is unlawful. (Doc. 1). This matter was

referred to Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds, who issued a Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny the Petition on August 20, 2007. (Doc. 15).

The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to the R&R.

Id. No objections were filed. 

The Court “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). It is “clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The

Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of

an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153 (1985); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263

Case 2:07-cv-00528-ROS Document 17 Filed 10/09/07 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 -

F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D. Ariz. 2003); Meeker v. Stewart, No. CV 05-1654, 2006 WL 3499927

(D. Ariz. Dec. 1, 2006) (Silver, J.). Because no objection has been made, the Court will

adopt the R&R. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED.

IT IF FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED this 5th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00528-ROS Document 17 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 2