Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01866/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01866-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Conrad Graber
Respondent
Jesus Reyes
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

Jesus Reyes, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Conrad Graber, 

Respondent.

No. CV-14-01866-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for 

a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1), and the Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) issued on January 28, 2015, by United States Magistrate 

Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc. 13). Since the filing of his Petition, Petitioner has received 

the relief he sought therein, i.e., he has been deemed eligible for early release 

consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e). Therefore, in its response to the Petition, the 

Respondent sought dismissal of the Petition due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

based upon mootness. Petitioner was allowed to file a reply, but he did not. See R & R 

(Doc. 13) at 3:2-4. 

 Agreeing with the Respondent, Magistrate Judge Metcalf correctly found that this 

Petition is moot and hence subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See R & R (Doc. 13) at 

3:6 – 4:14. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommended dismissing the Petition without 

prejudice. (Id. at 4:27–5:1). The Magistrate Judge also correctly made no 

recommendation as to a Certificate of Appealability because "[t]his case arises under 28 

Case 2:14-cv-01866-DJH Document 14 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

U.S.C. § 2241, and does not attack a State court detention." (Id. at 4:22-23). 

 The parties have not filed any objections to the R&R and the time to do so has 

expired. Absent any objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and 

recommendations in the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The 

relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on 

its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 

72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 

disposition that has been properly objected to.”). 

 Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its 

recommendation. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R, and dismiss the Petition as 

moot and without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may 

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 

the magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING as an Order of this Court 

Magistrate Judge Metcalf's R&R (Doc. 13); 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE the 

Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal 

Custody (Doc. 1); 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action 

and enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 19th day of February, 2015. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-01866-DJH Document 14 Filed 02/19/15 Page 2 of 2