Jones v. United States

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

9 James Lee Jones, Jr., No. CR-19-08075-PCT-DWL No. CV-23-08040-PCT-DWL 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. United States of America, 13 Respondent.

15 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) and the report and recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Bibles (Doc. 13). The R&R, which was issued on December 28, 2023, concluded that the motion should be denied and further provided that “the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 13 at 11.)

21 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) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 13) is accepted, that the § 2255 motion (Doc. 1) is denied, and that the Clerk shall enter judgment || accordingly.

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to 7\| proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because Petitioner has not made a || substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

9 Dated this 22nd day of January, 2024.

11 Lom ee” 12 f □□ □□ Dominic W. Lanza 13 United States District Judge _2-