Rivera-Sarabia v. United States

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

9 United States of America, No. CV-23-00502-PHX-GMS (DMF) CR-19-01396-PHX-GMS 10 Plaintiff/Respondent, ORDER v. Jose Francisco Rivera-Sarabia, 13 Defendant/Movant.

15 Pending before the Court are Movant’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) and United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 6, 10. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss the amended motion with prejudice. Doc. 10 at 8. 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. Id. at 11 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

23 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See 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.”). The Court will accept the R&R and deny the motion. 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 by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) 3|| (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

5 IT IS ORDERED: 6 1. Magistrate Judge Fine’s R&R (Doc. 10) is ACCEPTED.

7 2. Petitioner’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (Doc. || 6)is DISMISSED with prejudice.

9 3. The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this action.

10 4. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, in the || event Movant files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability || because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See 13} Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

14 Dated this 23rd day of January, 2024.

15 - 16 A Whacrsay Sooo) 17 Chief United States District Judge _2-