Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00192/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00192-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Duncan
Respondent
Jose Rodriguez
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jose Rodriguez,

Petitioner, 

v.

Warden David Duncan, 

Respondent. _________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 09-192 TUC DCB

O R D E R

The Court adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and for the reasons stated

in the Report and Recommendation, the Court denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

On June 29, 2009, the Honorable Glenda E. Edmonds, United States Magistrate Judge,

filed a Report and Recommendation ("Recommendation") in this action. The Recommendation

advised the Court to deny the Petitioner's Petition for Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because

he was given individualized consideration of his request for placement at a Residential Re-entry

Center. Addressing a request for transfer at the next scheduled Program Review does not

violate 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).

The parties were sent copies of the Recommendation and instructed that, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b), they had 10 days to file written objections to the Recommendation. See also,

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) (party objecting to the recommended disposition has ten

(10) days to file specific, written objections). To date, no such objections have been filed.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court makes a de novo determination as to those

portions of the Report and Recommendation to which there are objections. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made.") To

the extent that no objection has been made, arguments to the contrary have been waived.

Case 4:09-cv-00192-DCB Document 8 Filed 07/30/09 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 -

McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report

waives right to do so on appeal); see also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72

(citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely

objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

record in order to accept the recommendation).

The Court considers the Recommendation to be thorough and well-reasoned; it is neither

clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th

Cir. 1989). The Recommendation shall, therefore, be accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). The Court adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. For the reasons

stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 7] is adopted as the

opinion of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. # 1] is

DENIED; the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 29th day of July, 2009.

Case 4:09-cv-00192-DCB Document 8 Filed 07/30/09 Page 2 of 2