Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02622/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02622-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Gurule
Respondent
Gai Peter Won
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 

Gai Peter Won, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

John Gurule, 

Respondent.

No. CV-14-2622-PHX-JAT (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Gai Peter Won filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2241 arguing that he should be released from the custody of U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement. (Doc. 1) Respondent has informed the Court that Won was 

released from custody on December 19, 2014. (Doc. 7) Thus, Won has received the 

relief that he had requested. 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Gai Peter Won’s Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus be dismissed as moot.

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

Case 2:14-cv-02622-JAT Document 8 Filed 05/29/15 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 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 

further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 29th day of May, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02622-JAT Document 8 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 2