Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01990/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01990-1/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

Tony Joseph Boustany, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Alberto Gonzales, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1990-PHX-JAT

ORDER

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

(“Petition”) (Doc. #1) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Magistrate Judge issued a

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. #10) recommending that the Petition be

dismissed without prejudice because Petitioner had not been detained beyond the

presumptively reasonable amount of time for the Government to accomplish his deportation.

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts

the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not

required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”

(emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis

in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Case 2:06-cv-01990-JAT Document 11 Filed 12/15/06 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 -

However, despite the fact that Petitioner did not file objections, the Court notes that

the R&R concludes that the presumptively reasonable detention period (under Zadvydas v.

Davis, 121 S. Ct. 2491 (2001)) concluded October 18, 2006 (the date the R&R was filed).

Because almost two additional months have elapsed, if Petitioner wishes to have the Court

reconsider this conclusion, he may file a motion to re-open, within 30 days of this order, and

contemporaneously file his objections to the R&R. If Petitioner completes these steps, the

Court will consider the objections as if they had been timely filed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. #10) is ACCEPTED;

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

(Doc. #1) is DENIED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. 

DATED this 14th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01990-JAT Document 11 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 2