From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haque v. Kane

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jan 10, 2012
No. CV-11-1052-PHX-GMS (JFM) (D. Ariz. Jan. 10, 2012)

Opinion

No. CV-11-1052-PHX-GMS (JFM)

01-10-2012

Sheikh Samiul Haque, Petitioner, v. Katrina S. Kane, Respondent.


ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Motion to Withdraw and United States Magistrate Judge Metcalf's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). Docs. 1, 16, 19. The R&R recommends that the Court grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Doc. 19 at 5. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 14 days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 16 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; 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."); 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."). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R and grant the Motion to Withdraw and dismiss the Petition. 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"); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.").

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Metcalfs R&R (Doc. 19) is accepted.

2. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is dismissed.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

4. Because this case arises under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, no ruling on a certificate of appealability is required.

________________

G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Haque v. Kane

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jan 10, 2012
No. CV-11-1052-PHX-GMS (JFM) (D. Ariz. Jan. 10, 2012)
Case details for

Haque v. Kane

Case Details

Full title:Sheikh Samiul Haque, Petitioner, v. Katrina S. Kane, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Jan 10, 2012

Citations

No. CV-11-1052-PHX-GMS (JFM) (D. Ariz. Jan. 10, 2012)