Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00504/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00504-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thebe Eric Monyamane,

Petitioner,

v.

Phillip Crawford, et. al.,

Respondents. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0504-PHX-SMM

ORDER

On September 13, 2007, Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Guerin filed a Report and

Recommendation advising this Court that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”) (Dkt. 1) should be denied because the Petitioner

has failed to demonstrate that he will not be removed from the United States in the reasonably

foreseeable future. On October, 19, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to Magistrate Guerin’s

Report and Recommendation. After careful consideration of the Report and the objections

thereto, the Court hereby adopts Magistrate Guerin’s Report and Recommendation.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court must

“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391,

1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983)). 

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives his right to

challenge the Magistrate’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate’s legal

Case 2:07-cv-00504-SMM Document 19 Filed 10/25/07 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

1

For detailed analysis pertaining to Petitioner’s burden to establish that he will not be

removed in the reasonably foreseeable future and the length of Petitioner’s detention, See (Dkt.

15).

- 2 -

conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.

1998) (failure to object to Magistrate’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in

considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980)).

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed Petitioner’s Petition and, thereafter, having reviewed the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the record de novo, this Court agrees with Magistrate

Guerin’s conclusions. In particular, the Court agrees that Petitioner has failed to satisfy his

burden of providing a reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of his removal in

the reasonably foreseeable future.1

 Consequently, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Guerin. (Dkt.15).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED (Dkt. 1). The Clerk of Court shall terminate this

action accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order

to all parties as well as to Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Guerin.

DATED this 24th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00504-SMM Document 19 Filed 10/25/07 Page 2 of 2