Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00870/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00870-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Moses Gai Geng, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Michael Chertoff, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0870-PHX-EHC (JI)

 

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(Dkt. 1) challenging his detention pending removal. The matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Jay R. Irwin who issued a Report and Recommendation on February 12, 2008

recommending that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecutes (Dkt.

23). Petitioner has not filed an Objection or otherwise responded to the Report and

Recommendation. 

 Standard of Review

The district court reviews de novo the portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation to which Movant has filed an objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("a judge

of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, ..., to which

objection is made."); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003). The district court is not required to review any issue that is not the subject of an

Case 2:07-cv-00870-EHC Document 25 Filed 03/25/08 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 -

objection. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D. Ariz. 2003), citing Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

Discussion

Respondents filed notice indicating that Petitioner had been released from detention

on August 21, 2007 (Dkt. 16 & 17). As set forth in the Report and Recommendation,

Petitioner was twice given notice of his obligation to file a notice of change of address, and

an order directing him to do so, but Petitioner failed to keep his current address on file with

the Court. The Magistrate Judge re-issued the Order to show cause (Dkt. 21) to Petitioner

and directed mailing to the address of record and to a non-custodial address. Petitioner did

not respond. The docket sheet shows mail sent to Petitioner at the address of record returned

as undeliverable on January 18, 2008 (Dkt. 22). Following issuance of the Report and

Recommendation on February 12, 2008 (Dkt. 23), the docket sheet shows mail sent to

Petitioner at the address of record returned as undeliverable on February 19, 2008 (Dkt. 24).

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that this case

should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

(Dkt. 23) is adopted in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

DATED this 24th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00870-EHC Document 25 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 2