Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00129/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00129-0/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

1

 The Court’s docket establishes that the Clerk of the Court mailed a

copy of the Report and Recommendation to the defendant/movant at his address

of record on September 28, 2009.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent,

vs.

Alvaro Mendoza-Romero,

Defendant/Movant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-0129-PHX-PGR (LOA)

No. CR-08-0871-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Anderson’s Report and

Recommendation (doc. #13), filed September 28, 2009, wherein he recommends

that the defendant/movant’s motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be denied. 

Magistrate Judge Anderson expressly advised the parties in the Report and

Recommendation that they had ten days from the date of service of the Report

and Recommendation in which to file specific objections to it. A review of the

record establishes that neither party has to date filed any objection to the Report

and Recommendation and their time for doing so has expired.1

The statute governing the Court’s duty in reviewing a magistrate judge’s 

Case 2:09-cv-00129-PGR Document 14 Filed 11/12/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

report and recommendation, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), makes it clear that a district

judge is obligated to conduct a de novo if an objection is made, “but not

otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003) (en

banc); accord, Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir.2005) (“Of

course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to

the R & R.”) Since no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been

filed in this action, the Court declines to conduct a de novo review. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (doc. #13) is

accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant/movant’s Amended Motion

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in

Federal Custody (doc. #9 in CV-09-0129-PHX-PGR) is denied and that this action

is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 10th day of November, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00129-PGR Document 14 Filed 11/12/09 Page 2 of 2