Ramirez-Garcia v. Keisler

Full title: Romeo Ramirez-Garcia, Petitioner, v. Peter Keisler, et al., Respondents

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Jan 14, 2009

No. CV 07-1902 PHX-NVW (ECV) (D. Ariz. Jan. 14, 2009)

Opinion

No. CV 07-1902 PHX-NVW (ECV).

January 14, 2009

ORDER

NEIL WAKE, District Judge

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation ("R R") of Magistrate Judge Voss (Doc. # 23) regarding petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 1). The R R recommends that the Petition be dismissed as moot, the Petitioner having been ordered released on bond. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to the R R. (R R at (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). Petitioner filed objections on December 19, 2008. (Doc. # 25.) The court called for a reply, which was filed on January 9, 2009. (Doc. # 27.)

The court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., and overrules Petitioner's objections. 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").

Insofar as the Magistrate Judge also ruled on any non-dispositive matters, error may not be assigned to any defect in those rulings to the extent that an aggrieved party did not file a timely objection. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) ("Within 10 days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge's order, a party may serve and file objections to the order; a party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in the magistrate judge's order to which objection was not timely made."). The absence of a timely objection precludes later assignment of error in this court or in any higher court of the non-dispositive rulings of a magistrate judge. Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 23) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 1) as moot. The Clerk shall terminate this action.