Smith v. Shartle, CV-18-00183-TUC-JAS. (2020)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20200313a42
Visitors: 21
Filed: Mar. 12, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2020
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Markovich recommends enter an order dismissing the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) under 28 U.S.C. 2241 for lack of jurisdiction. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the Petition, the objections are denied. 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follo
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Markovich recommends enter an order dismissing the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) under 28 U.S.C. 2241 for lack of jurisdiction. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the Petition, the objections are denied. 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follow..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. SOTO, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Markovich recommends enter an order dismissing the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for lack of jurisdiction. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the Petition, the objections are denied.1
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Markovich's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is accepted and adopted.
(2) Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion is denied, and this case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case file.
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
