Case Information
*1 Case 2:18-cv-01873-RCC Document 28 Filed 03/18/21 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Manuel Duarte-Ruelas, No. CV-18-01873-PHX-RCC
Petitioner, ORDER
v.
Charles L Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.
On March 3, 2021 Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommended enter an order denying Petitioner Manuel Duarte-Ruelas’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1). (Doc. 26.) Judge Macdonald notified the parties they had fourteen days from the date of the R&R to file objections and an additional fourteen days to file a response. ( Id. at 5.) The Clerk of Court mailed a copy of the R&R to Duarte-Ruelas’s address listed in the docket. (Clerk’s Entry Mar. 4, 2021.) The mailing returned undeliverable. (Doc. 27.)
A review of the Arizona Department of Corrections inmate locator website reveals Petitioner was released from ADOC custody February 22, 2021. See https://corrections.az.gov/public-resources/inmate-datasearch (last visited March 17, 2020). Thus, Petitioner has failed to inform the Court of his change of address and has had a month after release to do so. Petitioner was previously warned that he must file a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil *2 Case 2:18-cv-01873-RCC Document 28 Filed 03/18/21 Page 2 of 2 Procedure, and that failure to provide a notice may lead to dismissal. (Doc. 3 at 3.) The Court will therefore dismiss this action for failure to follow a court order.
In addition, although Petitioner cannot be served with the R&R because he has failed to keep his address current, the Court has reviewed the R&R and corresponding filings and finds the R&R is well-reasoned. The standard of review of a magistrate judge’s R&R is dependent upon whether or not a party objects: where there is no objection to a magistrate’s factual or legal determinations, the district court need not review the decision “under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Here, the Court agrees with Judge Macdonald that the “dismissal of the criminal cases disposes of the detainer, and Petitioner’s habeas claim should be dismissed.” (Doc. 26 at 5 (citing Munoz v. Rowland , 104 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir. 1997).) The Court, therefore, adopts the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and legal conclusions.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the R&R is ADOPTED and Petitioner Manuel Duarte-Ruelas’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Doc. 1.) The Clerk of Court shall docket accordingly and close the case file in this matter.
Dated this 17th day of March, 2021.
- 2 -