Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00318/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00318-0/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

Enrique Guzman-Castaneda, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Tom Ridge, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-0318-PHX-DGC (CRP)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Unit ed States Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle's

report and recommendat ion (“R&R”) and Respondents’ motion to transfer. Docs. ##12,

13. Petitioner filed his habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 on January 27, 2005

challenging t he administrative order of removal against him, including the failure to allow

Pet it ioner § 212(c) relief at the administrative level. Doc. #1. Respondents move to transfer

this case to the United States Court of Appeals for t he Ninth Circuit on the ground that the

REAL ID Act of 2005 has divested this Court of jurisdiction over the present petition. Doc.

#13 at 1 (citing Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005); 8 U.S.C. § 1252). The R&R

recommends that the Court grant Respondent's motion to transfer the case, pursuant to

REAL ID Act of 2005. To date, Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Magist rat e's

R&R. 

“Failure to object t o a magistrate judge’s recommendation waives all objections to

Case 2:05-cv-00318-DGC-CRP Document 14 Filed 10/05/05 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 judge’s findings of fact.” Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998)); 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.”). Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the recommendations of

the R&R and finds that it is well founded. Respondents are correct that the REAL ID Act

of 2005 has divested this Court of jurisdiction over this action, including the pending R&R.

The Court will accordingly grant the motion to transfer.

IT IS ORDERED: 

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

2. The Clerk of Court shall transfe r t his action to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00318-DGC-CRP Document 14 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 2