Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00155/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00155-0/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

Emmanuel Aroc Planas, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Alberto R. Gonzales, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-155-PHX-DGC (HCE)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Respondents’ motion to transfer this action to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and United States Magistrate Judge

Héctor Estrada’s Report and Recommendat ion (“R&R”). Docs. ##12-13. The R&R

recommends that the Court grant the motion t o t ransfer because Petitioner did not respond

to the motion and transfer of this action to the Nint h Circuit is appropriate under the REAL

ID Act of 2005. Doc. #13 at 2-3 (citing LRCiv 7.2(i); REAL ID Act § 106(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(5); Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2005)). The

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had t en day s to file objections to the R&R

and that the failure to timely file objections to any determination of the Magistrate Judge

would be considered a waiver of the right to review of such det erminat ion. Id. at 3-4 (citing

28 U.S.C. § 636(b);United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Case 2:05-cv-00155-DGC-HCE Document 14 Filed 11/02/05 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 -

The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not

the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (“The district judge . . . shall make a de

novo determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which

specific written objection has been made[.]”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the

R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R and grant Respondents’

motion to transfer. 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”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (same). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Héctor Estrada’s R&R (Doc. #13) is accepted.

2. Respondents’ motion to transfer (Doc. #12) is granted.

3. The Clerk of Court shall transfer this action to t he Unit ed States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DATED this 31st day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00155-DGC-HCE Document 14 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 2