Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02090/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02090-1/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

1

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey has been substituted for former Attorney

General Alberto Gonzales. Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Qing Feng Weng, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2090-PHX-EHC (BPV)

 

ORDER

Petitioner proceeding pro se has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a

Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. 1).1

 The matter was referred to

Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco who has issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the § 2241 Petition be denied (Dkt. 13). Petitioner has not filed an

Objection to the Report and Recommendation. 

 Standard of Review

The district court reviews de novo the portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation to which Petitioner has filed an objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("a

judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, ..., to

which objection is made."); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

Cir. 2003); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D. Ariz. 2003), citing Thomas v.

Case 2:06-cv-02090-EHC Document 14 Filed 02/20/08 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 -

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)(determining that district courts are not required to review any

issue that is not the subject of an objection). 

Discussion

Petitioner alleged in his Petition that he has been in the custody of the Immigration

and Naturalization Service since October 2005 and that he continues to be detained without

lawful reason. As discussed in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,

Petitioner is a citizen and native of the People’s Republic of China who entered without

inspection by an Immigration Officer. Petitioner was taken into custody on May 21, 1996

to be entered into immigration proceedings. Petitioner was released on bond in June 1996

but his bond was canceled on January 8, 2003 and notice was given to Petitioner by certified

mail to report to INS ready for departure to the People’s Republic of China on March 11,

2003 with a valid passport. Petitioner was next apprehended on October 3, 2005 in Fort

Lauderdale, Florida. The Magistrate Judge has recommended that the evidence shows that

Petitioner has failed to cooperate with his own removal and that extension of the period of

detention is authorized pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C). 

In the absence of objections, the Court adopts in full the Report and Recommendation.

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the Court has reviewed the Report and

Recommendation and the information on file and finds on its independent review that the

recommended disposition is well taken.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed

on March 9, 2007 (Dkt. 13) is adopted in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 is denied.

DATED this 18th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02090-EHC Document 14 Filed 02/20/08 Page 2 of 2