Begay v. United States

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, ) No. CV-24-08000-PCT-SPL ) ) (No. CR-18-08107-PCT-SPL-01) Plaintiff/Respondent, ) vs. ) 11 ) ORDER ) Murphy Alex Begay, ) ) Defendant/Movant. ) ) 14 ) 15 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 16 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1), the Response from Respondents (Doc. 4), and Petitioner’s Reply (Doc. 26). Additionally, the Court has also considered the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 27), Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 30), and Respondents’ Response (Doc. 31).1 20 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 Petitioner has filed a Notice, indicating he intends to file a reply to Respondents’ response to Petitioner’s objections. (Doc. 32). A reply, however, is not permitted under the Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7, 72(b)(2); LRCiv. P. 7.2. To the extent the Notice is actually a motion for extension, the motion will be denied as moot.

1 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 3 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial 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).

8 The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently developed record. The Petitioner’s objections to the findings and recommendations have also been thoroughly considered.

11 After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches the same conclusions reached by the magistrate judge. The Court further finds that an evidentiary hearing would not impact the outcome of the Petition. The R&R will be adopted in full. Accordingly, 15 IT IS ORDERED: 16 1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is accepted and adopted by the Court; 18 2. That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 30) are overruled; 19 3. That the Notice (Doc. 32), which the Court construes as a Motion for Extension, is denied as moot; 21 4. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied, and this action is dismissed with prejudice; 23 5. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because the dismissal is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable; and /// /// /// 1 6. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment according and terminate this action.

3 Dated this 24th day of April, 2025.

6 United States District kadge