Hamilton v. United States

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

9 Donald Hamilton, No. CV-20-01301-PHX-DJH 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. United States of America, 13 Respondent.

15 Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 27), which recommends that Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) be denied, as well as a Certificate of Appealability.1 The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. (Doc. 27 at 25– 26). See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

22 Neither party filed objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”).

1 The R&R (Doc. 27) was filed under seal because it addressed privileged communications between the Petitioner and his trial counsel. This Order does not contain reference to any privileged communications and thus will not be filed under Seal.

1 “Unless this court has definite and firm conviction that the [Magistrate Judge] || committed a clear error of judgment, [this court] will not disturb [the] decision.” Jackson 3|| v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). The Court has 4|| independently reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well taken. The Court therefore will 5|| accept the R&R in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court || “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made 7\| by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or || modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 9|| magistrate judge with instructions.”).

10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Metcalf’?s R&R (Doc. 27) is ACCEPTED.

12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or || Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) is DENIED.

14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.

15 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment || and terminate the case.

17 Dated this 23rd day of May, 2022.

19 oC. . fo 20 norable' Diang4. Huretewa 1 United States District Fudge _2-