Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08131/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08131-1/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/Respondent, 

vs. 

Lonnie Ben, 

Defendant/Movant.

No. CV-14-08131-PCT-NVW (ESW)

 CR-12-08250-PCT-NVW 

ORDER 

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

Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett (Doc. 19) 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 dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised 

the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 12 (citing 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72). 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 3:14-cv-08131-NVW Document 20 Filed 10/08/15 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 dismiss the Motion to 

Vacate with prejudice. 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.19) is accepted. 

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

dismissing Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) with prejudice. 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: that a Certificate of 

Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED because Movant has 

not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Dated this 8th day of October, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-08131-NVW Document 20 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 2