Jaime C. Calderon v. United States of America

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Jaime C alderon, ) No. CV-23-08071-PCT-SPL ) No. CR-18-08126-PCT-SPL-01 ) 10 Movant, ) v. ) 11 ) ) ORDER 12 United States of America, ) ) 13 Respondent. ) ) 14 ) 15 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 88; Sealed at Doc. 89) (“R&R”) entered in this matter by Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf. Magistrate Judge Metcalf has recommended that the Motion be denied and dismissed with prejudice in both matters CV- 23-08071-PCT-SPL and CR-18-08126-PCT-SPL-01.

19 The Court has before it, Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1), Response to Movant’s Motion from the Respondent (Doc. 40; Doc. 46; Doc. 82; Doc. 83), Movant’s Reply (Doc. 76), Respondent’s Supplemental Response (Doc. 80), and Movant’s Supplemental Reply (Doc. 87).

23 Additionally, the Court is in receipt of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 88; Sealed at Doc. 89), Movant’s Objections (Doc. 92) and the Response to the Movant’s Objections from the Respondents (Doc. 93). The Court will not consider Movant’s Sur-reply (Doc. 94) as such filings are not permitted under either the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7, 72(b)(2); LRCiv. 7.2.

28 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 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 8 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).

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

16 After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches the same conclusions reached by Judge Metcalf. The R&R will be adopted in full.

18 Accordingly, 19 IT IS ORDERED: 20 1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 88; Sealed at Doc. 89) is accepted and adopted by the Court; 22 2. That the Movant’s Objections (Doc. 92) are overruled; 23 3. That the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Sentence pursuant to 28 24 U.S.C. § 2255 (CV-23-08071-PCT-SPL, Doc. 1; CR-18-08126-PCT-SPL-01, Doc. 202) is denied and dismissed with prejudice; /// /// /// 1 4. That a Certificate of Appealability is denied; and 2 5. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this 3 action.

4 Dated this 28th day of January, 2026.

7 United States District lidge