Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00604/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00604-2/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

Charles Bertrand, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Eric Himpton Holder, Jr., et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-604-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and

United States Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs.

1, 23. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. Doc. 23 at 10. The

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen 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 10-11 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). Petitioner’s counsel requested an extension to file an

objection and the Court granted the motion extending the time for an objection to September

13, 2011.

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

Case 2:10-cv-00604-GMS Document 26 Filed 09/19/11 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 -

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 well-taken. The Court will

accept the R&R and deny 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.”).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Irwin’s R&R (Doc. 23) is accepted.

2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

4. Because this case arises under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, no ruling on a certificate of

appealability is required.

DATED this 19th day of September, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00604-GMS Document 26 Filed 09/19/11 Page 2 of 2