Barraza v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CHRISTIAN DUENAS BARRAZA, CASE NO. C23-1271 BHS Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 12 Respondent.

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 10, recommending that the Court deny pro se petitioner Christian Barraza’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, Dkt. 5, grant the Government’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 8, and dismiss the matter with prejudice.

A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed finding or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (emphasis added); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “The 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.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A proper objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” in the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

4 Barraza does not object to the R&R. Accordingly, the R&R is ADOPTED, the Government’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 8, is GRANTED, Barraza’s habeas petition, Dkt.

6 5, is DENIED, and this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.

7 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated this 9th day of February, 2024.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge