Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00301/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00301-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marvin Badua, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Katrina Kane, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0301-PHX-GMS (CRP)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus/civil

rights complaint and United States Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”), and First Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. ## 1, 22 and 23). The

R&R recommends that the Court dismiss the petition as moot and grant the motion to

dismiss case without prejudice because Petitioner was released from confinement on a

$30,000 bond. (Dkt. # 23 at p.1). The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had

ten 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 p. 3 (citing 28

U.S.C. § 636(b).

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

Case 2:08-cv-00301-GMS Document 24 Filed 02/11/09 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 -

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 finds that it is welltaken. The Court will accept the R&R and [deny/grant/dismiss] the Petition/complaint. 

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.”).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Pyle’s R&R (Dkt. # 23) is ACCEPTED.

2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. #1) is DISMISSED AS

MOOT.

3. Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Case Without Prejudice (Dkt. # 22) is

GRANTED.

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

DATED this 11th day of February, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00301-GMS Document 24 Filed 02/11/09 Page 2 of 2