Sarkis Shaltapour v. John Cantu, et al.

Opinion

Sarkis Shaltapour, No. CV-25-03995-PHX-DWL

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

John Cantu, et al.,

Respondents. Petitioner filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. (Doc. 1.) On December 18, 2023, Magistrate Judge Bibles issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending “that the petition . . . be granted, and that Respondents be ordered to release [Petitioner] immediately, and that Respondents be required to docket a notice of compliance with any order issued by the Court.” (Doc. 15 at 7.) The R&R further provided that “any objections to the [R&R] be filed no later than December 23, 2025.” (Id.) That deadline has expired and no objections have been filed, presumably because Respondents conceded in their response to the petition that they “do not oppose Petitioner’s request for release at this time.” (Doc. 13.) The Court thus adopts the R&R. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and } recommendation unless objections are filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”’). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 15) is accepted. 2. The petition (Doc. 1) is granted. 3. Respondents shall release Petitioner immediately and then file a notice of compliance on the docket. 4. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. Dated this 24th day of December, 2025.

"Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge

-2-