Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01052/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01052-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sheikh Samiul Haque, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Katrina S. Kane, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1052-PHX-GMS (JFM)

ORDER

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

to Withdraw and United States Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”). Docs. 1, 16, 19. The R&R recommends that the Court grant the motion to

withdraw and dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Doc. 19 at 5. The Magistrate

Judge advised the parties that they had 14 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 16 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

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

novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The

Case 2:11-cv-01052-GMS Document 20 Filed 01/10/12 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 -

Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will

accept the R&R and grant the Motion to Withdraw 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”); 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 Metcalf’s R&R (Doc. 19) is accepted.

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

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 10th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01052-GMS Document 20 Filed 01/10/12 Page 2 of 2