Kumar v. Wolf

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Sachin Kumar, ) No. CV-20-00814-PHX-SPL ) ) 10 Petitioner, ) ORDER vs. ) ) ) Chad Wolf, et al., ) ) 13 Respondent. ) ) 14 ) 15 Sachin Kumar has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ.P. 12(b)(3) (Doc.

17 20), and Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22).

18 The Respondents also filed a Reply in Support of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc.

19 23). This Court is also in receipt of Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 28), and the Respondents Response to Petitioner’s Objection to the Report & Recommendation. (Doc. 29). The United States Magistrate Judge has issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27). The Petitioner does not appear to object to the correctness of the factual background in the R&R, which the Court adopts and incorporates. For the following reasons, the Court accepts and adopts the R&R. 26 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R | that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires 2| specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It 4| follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific 5| objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 6| U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial | economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or | arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s | decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 (9th Cir. 2000).

11 The Court has undertaken an extensive review of the issues presented in the Objections. Having carefully reviewed the record, the R&R will be adopted in full.

13 | Accordingly, 14 IT IS ORDERED: 15 1. That the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is accepted and adopted by the Court; 17 2. That Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 28) are overruled; 18 3. That the Motion to Dismiss/Transfer (Doc. 20) is granted; 19 4. That Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) will be transferred to the | United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi; and 21 5. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

22 Dated this 11th day of September, 2020.

United States District didge