Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01289/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01289-1/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

Fernando Miguel Garcia, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Katrina Kane, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1289-PHX-DGC (JJM)

ORDER

Petitioner Fernando Garcia is in federal custody pending resolution of a 2005 order

of removal against him. Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. #1. United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall has filed a

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant the petition and

direct Respondents to provide a hearing to Petitioner before an Immigration Judge with the

power to grant Petitioner bail unless the Government establishes that Petitioner is a flight risk

or a danger to the community. Dkt. #20. Judge Marshall advised the parties that they had

ten days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections may be

considered a waiver of the right to obtain de novo review of the R&R. Id. at 9 (citing United

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)).

The parties have not filed objections to the R&R, and the time for doing so has

expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (e)). The lack

of timely objections relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)]

Case 2:07-cv-01289-DGC Document 21 Filed 04/29/09 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 -

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

accordingly will accept the R&R and grant the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (the

district court may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation of the magistrate judge); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (same).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall’s R&R (Dkt. #20) is accepted.

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

3. Respondents shall, within 30 days from the date of this order, provide a

hearing to Petitioner before an Immigration Judge with the power to grant

Petitioner bail unless the Government establishes that Petitioner is a flight risk

or a danger to the community.

4. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action.

DATED this 28th day of April, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-01289-DGC Document 21 Filed 04/29/09 Page 2 of 2