Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00128/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00128-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Dirk Roberts, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Craig Apker, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-128-TUC-RCC

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner James Dirk Roberts’ Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1), Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 26),

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28), and

Petitioner’s Objections to the R&R (Doc. 29). After reviewing the record, the Court accepts

the R&R and denies Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, grants Respondent’s

Motion to Dismiss, denies Petitioner’s pending motions (Docs. 20, 21, and 22), and overrules

Petitioner’s objections to the R&R (Doc. 29).

The background in this case is thoroughly detailed in the “Background” section of

Magistrate Judge Marshall’s R&R. This Court fully incorporates by reference the

Background of the R&R into this Order. 

A district court must review the legal analysis in a Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In addition, a district court must

Case 4:10-cv-00128-RCC Document 31 Filed 08/10/11 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 -

review the factual analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo for those facts to

which objections are filed. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

Cir.2003) (en banc); see also 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 or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made”). “Failure to object to a magistrate judge's

recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact.” Jones v. Wood, 207

F.3d 557, 562 n. 2 (9th Cir.2000).

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Judge Marshall in light

of Petitioner’s Objection, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that

the Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should

be denied as moot and even if considered on the merits, do not warrant relief. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28)

is accepted and adopted by the court.

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

Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 26) is granted, and

Petitioner’s pending motions (Docs. 20, 21, and 22) are denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly and close this case.

DATED this 10th day of August, 2011.

Case 4:10-cv-00128-RCC Document 31 Filed 08/10/11 Page 2 of 2