Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_23-cv-08536/USCOURTS-azd-3_23-cv-08536-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Oliver Lee Hurley,

Petitioner,

v. 

United States of America,

Respondent.

No. CV-23-08536-PCT-DWL

No. CR-20-08085-PCT-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court are Movant’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 Willett (Doc. 40). The R&R, which was issued on July 2, 

2024, concluded that the motion should be denied and further provided that “the parties

shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this [R&R] within which to 

file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 40 at 11.)

Here, no such objections have been filed and the deadline has expired. 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

Case 3:23-cv-08536-DWL Document 41 Filed 07/30/24 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 40) is accepted, 

that the § 2255 Motion (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that the 

Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because Movant has not made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Dated this 30th day of July, 2024.

Case 3:23-cv-08536-DWL Document 41 Filed 07/30/24 Page 2 of 2