Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00784/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00784-1/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 

Arnoldo Zazueta-Miranda,

Movant/Defendant, 

vs. 

United States of America, 

Respondent/Plaintiff.

No. CV-14-0784-PHX-NVW (JFM)

 CR-09-1509-PHX-NVW 

ORDER 

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

Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc. 13) regarding Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set 

Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). 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 22 (citing Rule 72(b), 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 10, Rules Governing Section 2255 

Proceedings). 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-00784-NVW Document 14 Filed 03/11/15 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 R&R and 

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

Magistrate Judge (Doc.13) is accepted. 

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

Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(Doc. 1). 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: Certificate of Appealability is 

DENIED. 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 11th day of March, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-00784-NVW Document 14 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 2