1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 CARLOS IBARRA-ROQUE, Case No. 3:22-cv-00250-ART-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 9 IMMIGRATION, et al.,

10 Defendants. 11 Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 12 Magistrate Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 6), recommending that Ibarra-Roque’s in 13 forma pauperis application, (ECF No. 5), be denied as moot, and the amended 14 complaint, (ECF No. 4), be dismissed, based on a lack of jurisdiction. 15 The deadline for objections was August 10, 2022. Considering Mr. Ibarra- 16 Roque’s pro se status and the circumstance that he is detained the Court granted 17 Mr. Ibarra-Flores until November 8, 2022, to file any objections. No objections 18 have been filed. 19 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 20 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where 21 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 22 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 23 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. 24 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 25 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 26 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 27 1 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 2 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 3 In his amended complaint, Ibarra-Roque sues Defendants U.S. 4 Department of Immigration, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), and 5 Acting Director D. Johnson (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) under 42

. (See ECF No. 4.) Ibarra-Roque alleges that an ICE detainer has 7 been placed on him without a due process hearing. (Id. at 3.) Ibarra-Roque 8 asserts due process and equal protection violations and seeks monetary 9 damages and for the immigration hold to be removed. (Id. at 8.) 10 Judge Baldwin found that the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain 11 Ibarra-Roque’s claims and the complaint should be dismissed for lack of 12 jurisdiction. Judge Baldwin explained that Mr. Ibarra-Roque’s claims are not 13 cognizable in either a § 1983 action or a habeas corpus action in this court. 14 Section 1252 of Title 8 of the United States Code allows only very limited judicial 15 review of ICE orders and decisions. See

(stating which orders 16 are reviewable and listing requirements to seek judicial review); Reno v. 17 American–Arab Anti–Discrimination Comm.,

(1999) (interpreting 8

(g) to find no judicial review of ICE's “decision or action to 19 commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders”). 20 Because Plaintiff does not object to the R&R, the Court need not conduct 21 de novo review, and is satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Having 22 reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in 23 full. 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baldwin’s Report and 25 Recommendation (ECF No. 6) is accepted and adopted in full. 26 27 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application 2 (ECF No. 5) is DENIED as moot. 3 4 5 DATED THIS 13th Day of December 2022. 6 7

8 ANNE T. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27