Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00267/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00267-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip Crawford
Respondent
Eduardo Martinez-Herrera
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

Eduardo Martinez-Herrera, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Phillip Crawford, ICE Field Office

Director, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0267-PHX-NVW (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the court is the Supplemental Report and Recommendation

(“SuppR&R”) of Magistrate Judge Duncan (Doc. # 12) regarding petitioner’s Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. # 1). The SuppR&R

recommends that the Petition be granted. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they

had ten days to file objections to the SuppR&R. (SuppR&R at 5-6 (citing

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). No objections were filed.

Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003);

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.”). The absence of a

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the

rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)

Case 2:07-cv-00267-NVW Document 13 Filed 07/11/07 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 -

(“Within 10 days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s order, a party may

serve and file objections to the order; a party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in

the magistrate judge’s order to which objection was not timely made.”); Simpson v. Lear

Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-

21 (9th Cir. 2002).

In light of the absence of an objection, and holding the Respondent to his forfeiture,

the court will accept the Supplemental R&R and grant the Petition. 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”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Supplemental Report and Recommendation of

the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #12) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. # 1) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment granting the petition and

ordering that Respondent release Petitioner Martinez-Herrera from custody under an order

of supervision, or in the alternative that the Government, within 60 days of the date of this

order, provide a hearing to Petitioner Martinez-Herrera before an immigration judge with the

power to grant him bail unless the Government establishes that he is a flight risk or will be

a danger to the community.

The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

DATED this 11th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00267-NVW Document 13 Filed 07/11/07 Page 2 of 2