Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02094/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02094-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nicholas Pablo
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

 Due to a change in the Court’s docketing system, the Government’s response is

docketed only in the CR number, at Doc. #1266.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs.

Nicholas Pablo,

Defendant/Petitioner/Movant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 03-0794-PHX-JAT-07

CV 07-2094-PHX-JAT (JCG)

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/#1234). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. #2) recommending that the Motion be denied.1

 

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).

Case 2:07-cv-02094-JAT Document 3 Filed 09/11/08 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 -

However, the Court notes that, in contradiction of Reyna-Tapia and Schmidt, the

Magistrate Judge states that her recommendation is subject to the District Court conducting,

“its independent review of the record.” The Court is unclear whether the Magistrate Judge

is attempting to direct this Court to conduct a de novo review or is suggesting some other

standard. Nonetheless, consistent with Reyna-Tapia and Schmidt, this Court has not

conducted any review because no objections were filed. If Petitioner (or Respondents) failed

to file objections in reliance on the Magistrate Judge’s admonition to the District Court,

either party may move for reconsideration of this Order within thirty days and shall

contemporaneously file such parties’ objections with the motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #2)

is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED;

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

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. #1/#1234) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE;

and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 11th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02094-JAT Document 3 Filed 09/11/08 Page 2 of 2