Huan Yuan Yan v. David R Rivas, et al.

D. Arizona

Huan Yuan Yan v. David R Rivas, et al.

DecidedMay 6, 2026

Docket2:26-cv-01749

StatusUnknown

This text of Huan Yuan Yan v. David R Rivas, et al. (Huan Yuan Yan v. David R Rivas, et al.) 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

Huan Yuan Yan v. David R Rivas, et al., (D. Ariz. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Huan Yuan Yan, No. CV-26-01749-PHX-SHD

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 David R Rivas, et al.,

13 Respondents. 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 denied without 18 prejudice and this matter be dismissed as moot. (Doc. 11.) The time for filing objections 19 has run, and neither party filed objections. 20 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 22 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 23 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 24 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. 25 Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 26 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 27 otherwise.’”); see also Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 28 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions 1 || of the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object’). District courts 2|| are not required to conduct “any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an □□ objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (‘[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 5 || [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”’). 6 No objection having been filed, 7 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is accepted; the 8 || Petition is DENIED without prejudice, and this matter is dismissed as moot. The Clerk of 9 || Court shall issue judgment accordingly and close this case. 10 Dated this 6th day of May, 2026. 11 12 / 13

'° H le Sharad H. Desai 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-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

9 Huan Yuan Yan, No. CV-26-01749-PHX-SHD

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 David R Rivas, et al.,

13 Respondents. 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 denied without 18 prejudice and this matter be dismissed as moot. (Doc. 11.) The time for filing objections 19 has run, and neither party filed objections. 20 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 22 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 23 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 24 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. 25 Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 26 de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 27 otherwise.’”); see also Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 28 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions 1 || of the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object’). District courts 2|| are not required to conduct “any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an □□ objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (‘[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 5 || [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”’). 6 No objection having been filed, 7 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is accepted; the 8 || Petition is DENIED without prejudice, and this matter is dismissed as moot. The Clerk of 9 || Court shall issue judgment accordingly and close this case. 10 Dated this 6th day of May, 2026. 11 12 / 13

'° H le Sharad H. Desai 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Huan Yuan Yan v. David R Rivas, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huan-yuan-yan-v-david-r-rivas-et-al-azd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack