Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01114/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01114-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Fajugon Hurguilla
Petitioner
Katrina Kaine
Respondent

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

Jose Fajugon Hurguilla, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Katrina Kaine, ICE Field Office Director,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-01114-PHX-NVW (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate

Judge Duncan (Doc. # 16) regarding Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2251 (Doc. # 1). The R&R recommends that the Petition be denied

and dismissed as moot, Petitioner having been released. The Magistrate Judge

advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 2 (citing

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). No objections were filed, and the time to object has expired.

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)

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

Case 2:07-cv-01114-NVW Document 18 Filed 07/30/07 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 -

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).

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and

finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition as moot.

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 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge (Doc. 16) 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 dismissed as moot.

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

the Petition as moot. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

DATED this 27th day of July 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01114-NVW Document 18 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 2