Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00610/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00610-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs.

Jesus A. Murrieta-Perez

Defendant/Petitioner/Movant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 10-0610-PHX-JAT (DKD)

CR 08-0712-PHX-JAT

ORDER

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

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 9) recommending that the Motion be denied. 

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts

the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not

required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”

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

banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis

in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9)

is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED;

Case 2:10-cv-00610-JAT Document 10 Filed 10/07/10 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. #1) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; and the

Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section

2255 Proceedings, in the event Movant files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a

certificate of appealability because Movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right.

DATED this 6th day of October, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00610-JAT Document 10 Filed 10/07/10 Page 2 of 2