Strausbaugh v. Shartle, CV-17-00333-TUC-JAS. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20190816970
Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 15, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court are a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco that recommends denying Petitioner's habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (Doc. 46), and Plaintiff's Motion to Life Stay (Doc. 48). As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the habeas petition, the objections are denied. 1 Further, as Plaintiff has requested
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court are a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco that recommends denying Petitioner's habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (Doc. 46), and Plaintiff's Motion to Life Stay (Doc. 48). As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the habeas petition, the objections are denied. 1 Further, as Plaintiff has requested ..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. SOTO, District Judge.
Pending before the Court are a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco that recommends denying Petitioner's habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (Doc. 46), and Plaintiff's Motion to Life Stay (Doc. 48). As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the habeas petition, the objections are denied.1
Further, as Plaintiff has requested to lift the say, the need for a stay has passed. As no stay was put in place, no stay must be lifted. Therefore, Plaintiff's motions related to a stay (Docs. 46, 48) are denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Velasco's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 38) is accepted and adopted.
(2) The Petition (Doc. 1) is denied due to lack of jurisdiction. This matter is dismissed with prejudice.
(3) Plaintiff's motions related to a stay (Docs. 46, 48) are denied.
(4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in this matter and close this case.
FootNotes
1. The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. See Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).
Source: Leagle
