United States District Court, C.D. California
MR. ANTOINE ELIAS NASR, Petitioner,
STEVEN LAROCCA -Assistant Field Office Director, Respondent.
the Report & Recommendation: Dismissing Grounds 1 & 2 Without
Prejudice Denying & Dismissing Ground 3 With Prejud.
Directing Entry of Separate Judgment Terminating & Closing
the Case (JS-6)
Valerie Baker Fairbank Senior United States District Judge.
an action for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal
Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241. Pursuant to his
authority under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(1), title 28 U.S.C.
section 636(b)(1)(B), and C.D. Cal. Local Civil Rule 72-3.3,
United States Magistrate Judge Eick issued a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") on June 1, 2016.
See Case Management / Electronic Case Filing System
Document ("Doc") Doc 1.
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the
habeas corpus petition (Doc 1); the respondents' Return
to the petition (Doc 6); the Immigration Judge's March 9,
2016 Removal Order (Doc 6-1); the Board of Immigration
Appeals's June 2, 2016 Final Removal Order (Doc 6-2); the
two-page Declaration of USICE Deportation Officer Christopher
Mendivil executed April 6, 2016 (Doc 6-3); petitioner
Nasr's reply (Doc 8), the respondents' Supplemental
Return filed May 19, 2016 (Doc 10), the two-page Declaration
of Mendivil executed May 18, 2016 (Doc 10-1), the R&R (Doc
12), and the applicable law.
has not filed written objections to the R&R within the time
allotted by our Local Civil Rule 72-3.4, nor has he
sought an extension of the objection deadline. Accordingly,
the Court proceeds to the R&R without waiting further.
terms, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) requires a
District Judge to conduct de novo review only of those
portions of an R&R to which a party has filed timely specific
objection. See Rael v. Foulk, No. LA CV 14-02987
Doc. 47, 2015 WL 4111295, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015)
(Fairbank, J.) ("As required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3),
the Court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of
the R&R to which petitioner has specifically objected . . .
."), COA denied, No. LA CV 14-02987 Doc. 53,
Appeal No. 15-56205 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2016).
the Ninth Circuit has held that absent a timely objection
purporting to identify specific defects in the R&R, the
District Judge has no obligation to review the R&R at all.
See Beard v. Nooth, 2013 WL 3934188, *1 (D. Or. July
30, 2013) ("For those portions of a magistrate's
findings and recommendations to which neither party has
objected, the [Federal Magistrates] Act does not prescribe
any standard of review.") (citing Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152, 106 S.Ct. 466, 473 (1985)
("There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the
Federal Magistrates Act], intended to require a district
judge to review a magistrate's report.[.]") and
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9thCir. 2003) (en banc) (district judge must
review a magistrate's findings and recommendations de
novo if objections are made, "but not otherwise"));
see, e.g., Herring v. Maricopa County Sheriff's
Office, 2016 WL 2754851, *1 (D. Ariz. May 12, 2016)
(Campbell, J.) ("No objection has been filed, which
relieves the Court of its obligation to review the
R&R.") (citing, inter alia,
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121, and Thomas,
474 U.S. at 149); Hussak v. Ryan, 2016 WL 2606993,
*1 (D. Ariz. May 6, 2016) (Rayes, J.) (same).
the Magistrates Act does not preclude a district
judge from reviewing an R&R to make sure that it recommends a
legally permissible and appropriate outcome (based on sound
reasoning and valid precedent) if she chooses to do so."
Juarez v. Katavich, 2016 WL 2908238, *2 (C.D. Cal.
May 17, 2016) (Fairbank, J.) (citing Beard, 2013 WL
3934188 at *1 (although no review is required in the absence
of objections, the Magistrates Act "‘does not
preclude further review by the district judge sua
sponte . . . under a de novo or any other
standard") (quoting Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154)).
"Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b) recommend that [w]hen no timely objection is filed, the
Court review the magistrate's recommendations for clear
error on the face of the record." Juarez, 2016
WL 2908238 at *2 (citation omitted).
an abundance of caution, then, the Court has reviewed the
R&R. On either clear-error or de novo review, the Court finds
no defect of law, fact, or logic in the R&R. Therefore the
Court will adopt the R&R and implement its recommendations.
following three individuals are TERMINATED as parties
Loretta Lynch - United States Attorney General
Jeh Johnson - Secretary of United States Department of
"Mr. Jorge Field (US ICE Field Office Director for the
Theo Lacy ...