Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02481/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02481-2/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 

TERMPSREF 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Juan Manuel Muniz-Chaidez, 

Defendant/Movant. 

No. CV 12-2481-PHX-GMS 

 CR 11-1021-PHX-GMS 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Defendant/Movant’s Juan Manuel Muniz-Chaidez 

Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence and United 

States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). 

Docs. 1, 7. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the motion and dismiss with 

prejudice. Doc. 7 at 2. 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 2-3 (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b), 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

 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 

Case 2:12-cv-02481-GMS Document 8 Filed 03/25/13 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 

TERMPSREF 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is welltaken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the motion and dismiss with prejudice. 

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) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended 

disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with 

instructions.”). 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Magistrate Judge Burns’ R&R (Doc. 7) is accepted. 

 2. Petitioner’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or 

Correct Sentence (Doc. 1) is dismissed with prejudice. 

 3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 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 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 25th day of March, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02481-GMS Document 8 Filed 03/25/13 Page 2 of 2