Baghdasaryan v. Noem et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 (Doc. 1). Respondent filed an Answer (Doc. 9), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the
Respondents’ Answer (Doc. 12). The Court is also in receipt of the Report and
Recommendation from the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 13), and the Petitioner’s
Objections (Doc. 14). The Court accepts and adopts the R&R.
A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a
timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R
that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires
specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It
follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific
objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial
Shahen Baghdasaryan,
Petitioner,
vs.
Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-26-01979-PHX-SPL
ORDER
Case 2:26-cv-01979-SPL Document 16 Filed 06/08/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or
arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s
decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622
(9th Cir. 2000).
The Court has undertaken an extensive review of the issues presented in the
Objections. Having carefully reviewed the record, the R&R will be adopted in full.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is accepted and adopted by
this Court.
2. That Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 14) are overruled.
3. That Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is granted in part to the
extent Petitioner requests a bond hearing. Within thirty (30) days, Petitioner shall be
afforded a bond hearing before a neutral adjudicator at which hearing the government must
bear the burden of showing that Petitioner should not be released on bond because he is a
flight risk or a danger to the community.
4. That Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) will be denied in all other
respects.
5. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this
action.
Dated this 8th day of June 2026.
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-01979-SPL Document 16 Filed 06/08/26 Page 2 of 2