DerOhannessian v. Kline

D. Arizona

DerOhannessian v. Kline

DecidedMay 8, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-02686

StatusUnknown

This text of DerOhannessian v. Kline (DerOhannessian v. Kline) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DerOhannessian v. Kline, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Vatche Haroutioun DerOhannessian, No. CV-24-02686-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Kris Kline, 13 Respondent.

14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred issued 17 a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Petition be dismissed as moot. 18 (Doc. 18). The time for filing objections has run, and neither party filed objections.1 19 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 21 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 22 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 23 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 24 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 25 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 26 otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 27 28 1 Petitioner’s mail was being returned as undeliverable. (See, e.g., Doc. 12). Respondent provided a last known address. (Doc. 13). Mail has been sent to the last known address and has not been returned. 1} 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the 2| [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are 3} not required to conduct “any review at all .. . of any issue that is not the subject of an 4) objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. 5} § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report 6| and recommendation] to which objection is made.”’). 7 No objections having been filed, 8 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is accepted; the 9| Petition is dismissed, without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.” 11 Dated this 8th day of May, 2025. 12 13 a 14 15 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27) 28 ? Because the Petition was filed pursuant to § 2241, no certificate of appealability is necessary. See Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm ’n, 114 F.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir. 1557). _2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Vatche Haroutioun DerOhannessian, No. CV-24-02686-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Kris Kline, 13 Respondent.

14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred issued 17 a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Petition be dismissed as moot. 18 (Doc. 18). The time for filing objections has run, and neither party filed objections.1 19 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 21 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 22 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 23 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 24 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 25 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 26 otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 27 28 1 Petitioner’s mail was being returned as undeliverable. (See, e.g., Doc. 12). Respondent provided a last known address. (Doc. 13). Mail has been sent to the last known address and has not been returned. 1} 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the 2| [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are 3} not required to conduct “any review at all .. . of any issue that is not the subject of an 4) objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. 5} § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report 6| and recommendation] to which objection is made.”’). 7 No objections having been filed, 8 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is accepted; the 9| Petition is dismissed, without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.” 11 Dated this 8th day of May, 2025. 12 13 a 14 15 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27) 28 ? Because the Petition was filed pursuant to § 2241, no certificate of appealability is necessary. See Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm ’n, 114 F.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir. 1557). _2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

DerOhannessian v. Kline, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/derohannessian-v-kline-azd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack