Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01032/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01032-0/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

*

Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Ricardo E. Chavez,

the Warden at FCI Phoenix effective June 16, 2008, replaces Dora Craig Apker.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William H. Taylor, )

) No. CIV 08-1032-PHX-NVW (DKD)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

Ricardo E. Chavez,*

 Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

TO THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

William Taylor filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,

challenging the conclusion by the Bureau of Prisons that he is ineligible to receive early

release upon completion of the Residential Drug Abuse Program because of his previous

robbery conviction. A search of the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator indicates that Taylor

was released from custody on April 21, 2009. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that William Taylor’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus be dismissed as moot (Doc. #1).

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

Case 2:08-cv-01032-NVW Document 14 Filed 05/15/09 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 -

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules

72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and

Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 14th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01032-NVW Document 14 Filed 05/15/09 Page 2 of 2