Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02808/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02808-1/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 

Juan Jose Castillo-Rodriguez,

Petitioner, 

vs. 

United States of America, 

Respondent.

No. CV-14-2808-PHX-NVW (DKD)

 CR-13-0254-PHX-NVW 

 

ORDER 

Pending before the court is the Amended Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

of Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan (Doc. 13) regarding Petitioner’s Amended Motion 

to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 4). The 

R&R recommends that the Motion be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties 

that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 4 (citing Rule 72, 

6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). No objections were filed. 

Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the 

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 

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.”). The absence of a 

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the 

rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A 

party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a 

Case 2:14-cv-02808-NVW Document 14 Filed 09/18/15 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 

copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not 

timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 

1996); Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120–21 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the Amended 

R&R and finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the Amended R&R and deny 

the Amended Motion. 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”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Amended Report and Recommendation of 

the Magistrate Judge (Doc.13) is accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 

Petitioner’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 4). The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order 

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

Sentence by Person in Federal Custody, the Court FINDS: that a Certificate of 

Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED because Petitioner has 

not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Rule 11(a), 

Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases in the United States District Courts; 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(3). 

Dated this 18th day of September, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-02808-NVW Document 14 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 2