Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00841/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00841-1/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 

Jorge Daniel Lopez-Mejia, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

USA, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-00841-PHX-GMS

 

No. CR-09-01145-PHX-GMS 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s (First) Amended Motion Under 28 

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

and United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett’s Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”) filed in the above referenced caption. Docs. 7, 20. The R&R recommends that 

the Court [grant the Motion to Strike and deny the First Amended Motion to Vacate 

and dismiss with prejudice]. Doc. 20 at 9-10. 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. § 28 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 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 

Case 2:14-cv-00841-GMS Document 21 Filed 06/30/15 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 

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 welltaken. The Court will accept the R&R[, grant the Motion to Strike and deny the First 

Amended Motion to Vacate and dismiss with prejudice]. See 28 U.S.C. § 36(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 Willett’s R&R (Doc. 20) is accepted. 

 2. Respondent’s Motion to Strike or Dismiss Second Amended Motion (Doc. 

19) is granted and the Clerk of Court is directed to strike the Motion (Doc. 18). 

 2. Petitioner’s (First) Amended Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, 

Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 7) and also filed in 

CR-09-01145 (Doc. 583) are denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

 4. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, in the 

event Movant files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 30th day of June, 2015. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-00841-GMS Document 21 Filed 06/30/15 Page 2 of 2