Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00084/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00084-1/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

TERMPSREF

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Noor Ahmad,

Petitioner,

vs.

Katrina Kane,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-0084-PHX-GMS (DKD)

ORDER

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

United States Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).

Docs. 1, 9. The R&R recommends that the Court deny as moot the Petition. Doc. 9 at 1.

The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten 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 1-2, (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure; 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-00084-GMS Document 11 Filed 06/30/11 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

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 as moot. 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 Duncan’s R&R (Doc. 9) is ACCEPTED.

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

MOOT.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

4. The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this

decision would not be taken in good faith.

DATED this 30th day of June, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00084-GMS Document 11 Filed 06/30/11 Page 2 of 2