Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00031/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00031-2/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

Bao Vu, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Eric Holder, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-0031-PHX-GMS (MHB)

ORDER

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

United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).

Docs. 3, 20. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss the Petition as it is now moot.

Doc. 20 at 2. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen 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 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72, 6(a), 6(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

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

Case 2:11-cv-00031-GMS Document 21 Filed 06/17/11 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 -

accept the R&R 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 Burns’ R&R (Doc. 20) is ACCEPTED.

2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 3) is DISMISSED.

3. The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this action.

DATED this 17th day of June, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00031-GMS Document 21 Filed 06/17/11 Page 2 of 2