McReynolds v. United States

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

9 Joseph Minh McReynolds, No. CR-18-01170-PHX-GMS CV-24-01854-PHX-GMS 10 Movant, ORDER v. United States of America, 13 Respondent.

15 Pending before the Court are Movant’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) (Doc. 10), the United States’s Response (Doc. 13) and United States Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R) (Doc.

18 14). The R&R recommends that the Court deny the amended motion. (Doc. 14 at 6). 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 14 (citing United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

23 The copy of the R&R mailed to Movant was returned as “Refused”. (Doc. 15). 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 2|| 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) (“The district judge 4|| may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or || return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

6 IT IS ORDERED: 7 1. Magistrate Judge Bible’s R&R (Doc. 14) is ACCEPTED 8 2. Movant’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or correct Sentence (Doc.

10) is DENIED.

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

11 4. Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United || States District Court, in the event Movant files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a || certificate of appealability because he has not made a substantial showing of the denial of 14]| aconstitutional right.

15 Dated this 16th day of September, 2025. sf. Waray Sov) 18 Senior United States District Judge _2-