Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02171/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02171-1/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

v. 

Luis Arturo Alonzo, 

Defendant/Petitioner.

No. CV-11-02171-PHX-GMS (ECV)

No. CR-10-1431-PHX-GMS 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct 

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2225 and United States Magistrate Judge Edward C. 

Voss’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 1, 10. The R&R recommends that 

the Court deny the Motion. Doc. 10 at 10. 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 

10 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 

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 wellCase 2:11-cv-02171-GMS Document 11 Filed 02/26/13 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 

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”); 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 Voss’s R&R (Doc. 10) is accepted. 

 2. Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (Doc. 1) is 

denied. 

 3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 4. The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of 

this decision would not be taken in good faith. 

 Dated this 26th day of February, 2013. 

Case 2:11-cv-02171-GMS Document 11 Filed 02/26/13 Page 2 of 2