Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02754/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02754-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Assiedoo Lonelyss,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Michael Chertoff, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2754-PHX-MHM (GEE) 

ORDER

On November 16, 2006, Petitioner Assiedoo Lonelyss (“Petitioner”) filed his instant

habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt.#1). The same day, the Court

issued its Notice of Assignment warning Petitioner that he was obligated to keep the Court

apprised of his current address and that failure to comply with such direction could result in

the dismissal of his case. (Dkt.#2). On April 12, 2007, the Court screened Petitioner’s

Petition and directed service as well as warned that Petitioner must keep the Court apprised

of his address or face possible dismissal. (Dkt.#9). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with an order

of the court). However, the Court’s screening order mailed to Petitioner was returned as

undeliverable and marked as “Unclaimed/Not in Custody.” (Dkt.#14). On May 8, 2007, the

Magistrate Judge issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as

moot in light of the Petitioner’s apparent removal from the United States. (Dkt.#19). Again,

the order to show cause was returned as undeliverable. (Dkt.#21). On June 7, 2007, the

Case 2:06-cv-02754-MHM Document 24 Filed 09/07/07 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 -

Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation that the Court dismiss the action for

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. (Dkt.#22). Not surprisingly, the Petitioner did not file any

objections to the Report and Recommendation and Petitioner’s copy of the Report and

Recommendation was returned as undeliverable. (Dkt.#23). In light of this history and the

absence of any objection by the Petitioner, the Court finds itself in agreement with the

Magistrate Judge. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en

banc) (the district court must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations

de novo if objection is made but not otherwise). 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court. (Dkt.#22).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Petitioner’s case for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the clerk of the Court to enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02754-MHM Document 24 Filed 09/07/07 Page 2 of 2