Miranda-Espinoza v. United States

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Carlos Armenta-Vasquez, No. CV-19-05310-PHX-DWL 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. United States of America, 13 Respondent.

15 Pending before the Court are Movant’s amended motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence (Doc. 7) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 17). The R&R, which was issued on July 1, 2020, recommended that the amended motion be denied and further provided that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 17 at 12.)

22 Here, no such objections have been filed. Thus, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. 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) 1|| (‘[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 2|| de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 17) is accepted, || the amended motion (Doc. 7) is denied, and the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment 6|| accordingly.

7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability be denied because || petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

9 Dated this 30th day of July, 2020.

11 Lom ee” 12 f t _o—— Dominic W. Lanza 13 United States District Judge -2-