Opinion
No. CV 10-128-TUC-RCC.
August 10, 2011
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner James Dirk Roberts' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1), Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 26), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28), and Petitioner's Objections to the R R (Doc. 29). After reviewing the record, the Court accepts the R R and denies Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, grants Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, denies Petitioner's pending motions (Docs. 20, 21, and 22), and overrules Petitioner's objections to the R R (Doc. 29).
The background in this case is thoroughly detailed in the "Background" section of Magistrate Judge Marshall's R R. This Court fully incorporates by reference the Background of the R R into this Order.
A district court must review the legal analysis in a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In addition, a district court must review the factual analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo for those facts to which objections are filed. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also 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 or recommendations to which objection is made"). "Failure to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact." Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2000).
Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Judge Marshall in light of Petitioner's Objection, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be denied as moot and even if considered on the merits, do not warrant relief. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28) is accepted and adopted by the court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 26) is granted, and Petitioner's pending motions (Docs. 20, 21, and 22) are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.