Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01439/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01439-1/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

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carlin Grant Bartschi, 

Defendant/Petitioner. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1439-PHX-ROS 

No. CR-06-349-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’s Report and

Recommendation, which was filed on May 27, 2010. (Doc. 13) Magistrate Judge Voss

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

U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) and Motion to Grant Relief Requested in Motion to Vacate (Doc. 5)

be denied. Petitioner has not filed any objections. 

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 USC § 636(b). Where any party has

filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations, the district

court’s review of the part objected to is to be de novo. Id.; see also United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, but not otherwise.”) (internal

Case 2:09-cv-01439-ROS Document 14 Filed 06/14/10 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

27

28

- 2 -

quotations and citations omitted). No objections being made, the Court will adopt the Report

and Recommendation in full. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. foll § 2255, R. 11, the Court must “issue or deny a certificate

of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of

appealability will be denied because the Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is ADOPTED and

the Motions (Docs. 1, 5) ARE DENIED.

FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability IS DENIED.

DATED this 11th day of June, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01439-ROS Document 14 Filed 06/14/10 Page 2 of 2