Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02536/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02536-1/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 

Juan Rayas-Espinoza, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Respondent.

No. CV-14-02536-PHX-GMS

No. CR-14-00247-PHX-GMS 

ORDER 

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

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

Recommendation (“RARE”). Docs. 1, 7. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the 

Motion and dismiss with prejudice. Doc. 7 at 12. 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 12 (citing 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 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

Case 2:14-cv-02536-GMS Document 9 Filed 03/21/16 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 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is welltaken. The Court will accept the R&R and will deny the Motion and dismiss 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”); 

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. 7) is accepted. 

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

denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

 3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 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 18th day of March, 2016. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-02536-GMS Document 9 Filed 03/21/16 Page 2 of 2