Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00654/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00654-2/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

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

VICTORIA OGONNA OFOEDU, )

)

Petitioner, ) 2:09-cv-00654 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER FROM CHAMBERS 

)

J. SCHOMIG, )

) [Re: Motion at docket 19;

Respondent. ) Report at docket 25]

)

I. MATTER PRESENTED

In her motion at docket 19, petitioner challenges her final order of removal.

Respondent was directed to and did file a response which is at docket 24. Thereafter,

Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns filed a report at docket 25 in which she

recommends that the motion be denied. Petitioner filed an objection at docket 26.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate.”1

 When reviewing a magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation in a case such as this one, the district court conducts de

Case 2:09-cv-00654-JWS Document 27 Filed 12/07/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by

Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996).

3

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4

Taberer v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 954 F.2d 888, 906 (3d Cir. 1992).

-2-

novo review of all conclusions of law,2

 and any findings of fact to which objections have

been made.3

 Uncontested findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.4

III. DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the file, including the objection, and applied the standard of

review articulated above, this court concludes that the magistrate judge has correctly

found the facts and applied the law. Petitioner’s objections do not address the

shortcomings identified in the report and are insufficient to call into question any of the

magistrate judge’s recommended findings and conclusions. This court adopts the

recommended findings and conclusions at docket 25.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, and based on its adoption of the findings and conclusions

recommended by the magistrate judge, the motion at docket 19 is DENIED. The

original petition having been already denied in the order at docket 22, the Clerk of Court

is directed to enter judgment against petitioner and close this case.

DATED this 4th day of December 2009.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:09-cv-00654-JWS Document 27 Filed 12/07/09 Page 2 of 2