From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murillo-Flores v. Mukasey

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Feb 5, 2009
No. CV 08-0943-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Feb. 5, 2009)

Opinion

No. CV 08-0943-PHX-JAT.

February 5, 2009


ORDER


Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") (Doc. #2) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R R") (Doc. #30) recommending that the Petition be denied.

Neither party has filed objections to the R R. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the R R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection" (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ( en banc) ("statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise" (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #30) is ACCEPTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #2) is DENIED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in the event the circumstances surrounding Petitioner's detention change.


Summaries of

Murillo-Flores v. Mukasey

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Feb 5, 2009
No. CV 08-0943-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Feb. 5, 2009)
Case details for

Murillo-Flores v. Mukasey

Case Details

Full title:Nestor D. Murillo-Flores, Petitioner, v. Michael B. Mukasey, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Feb 5, 2009

Citations

No. CV 08-0943-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Feb. 5, 2009)

Citing Cases

Altayar v. Lynch

See Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166, 1173 (9th Cir. 2002) ("When a controversy no…