Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00129/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00129-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Singh H. Sohal-Kulvinder, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Katrina S. Kane, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0129 PHX-NVW (MB)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

Magistrate Judge Burns (Doc. # 13) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. # 1). The R&R recommends that the

Petition be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file

objections to the R&R. (R&R at page 8 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). Both parties filed

objections. (Doc. # 14, 15.) Respondent has filed a response to Petitioner’s Objection. 

(Doc. # 16.)

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that

the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the

Case 2:08-cv-00129-NVW Document 17 Filed 09/03/08 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 -

Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning

of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules the parties’ objections. 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”). The Court notes that the

government has obtain new travel papers to Indian for Petitioner and he was due to have

traveled there August 26, 2008. (Doc. # 16 & Ech. 1.) If for any reason he has not

traveled, he cannot complaint about the government for it. 

Insofar as the Magistrate Judge also ruled on any non-dispositive matters, error

may not be assigned to any defect in those rulings to the extent that an aggrieved party

did not file a timely objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“Within 10 days after being served

with a copy of the magistrate judge’s order, a party may serve and file objections to the

order; a party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in the magistrate judge’s order to

which objection was not timely made.”). The absence of a timely objection precludes

later assignment of error in this court or in any higher court of the non-dispositive rulings

of a magistrate judge. Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir.

1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 13) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2251

(Doc. # 1). The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 2nd day of September, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00129-NVW Document 17 Filed 09/03/08 Page 2 of 2