Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01237/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01237-1/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Rebham Pero Aduord, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Loretta E. Lynch, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-01237-PHX-NVW (BSB)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade (Doc. 18) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that 

Respondents Saldana, Homan, Gurule, and Giles be dismissed. The Court also 

recommends that the Petition be denied because this Court lacks authority to review the 

IJ’s discretionary bond determinations, Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative 

remedies, and because Petitioner’s detention during removal proceedings does not 

warrant § 2241 relief and that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The 

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the 

R&R. (R&R at 8 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 and 72)). No 

objections were filed. 

Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the 

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 

Case 2:15-cv-01237-NVW Document 19 Filed 11/19/15 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 

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.”). The absence of a 

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the 

rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A 

party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a 

copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not 

timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 

1996); Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and 

finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and 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”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 18) is accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment 

dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 (Doc. 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 18th day of November, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01237-NVW Document 19 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 2