Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02190/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02190-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Donahue
Respondent
Abdihakiin Ahmed Qalinle
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 

Abdihakiin Ahmed Qalinle,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Michael Donahue, 

Respondent.

No. CV-15-02190-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 29, 2016, by United States Magistrate 

Judge Bridget S. Bade (Doc. 14). 

 During the pendency of the Petition, Respondent notified the Court that on 

November 6, 2015, Petitioner had been released from the custody of the United States 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") agency. (Doc. 14 at 2:7-8) (citation 

omitted). After Respondent filed a Notice to Court and Suggestion of Mootness based 

upon Petitioner's release from ICE custody, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order to 

Show Cause, requiring Petitioner to file a response thereto showing why his Petition 

should not be dismissed as moot. (Id. at 2:10-12) (citation and footnote omitted). See 

Doc. 16. When Petitioner did not respond, and because Petitioner had been granted the 

relief he sought in his Petition, the Magistrate Judge soundly reasoned that his release 

mooted the Petition. (Id. at 2:15-3:20). On this basis, the Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-02190-DJH Document 15 Filed 02/18/16 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 

recommended denying the Petition as moot. (Id. at 3:23-24). 

 The parties have not filed objections 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 deny the Petition as 

moot. 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 Bade’s R&R (Doc. 14); 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 

2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1); and 

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

and enter judgment accordingly. 

Dated this 18th day of February, 2016. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-02190-DJH Document 15 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 2