Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08215/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08215-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tyrone James Sam
Petitioner
USA
Respondent

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Tyrone James Sam, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

USA, 

Respondent.

No. CV-14-08215-PCT-JAT

 CR-12-8176-PCT-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. 18) 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. 

18) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; 

Case 3:14-cv-08215-JAT Document 19 Filed 01/21/16 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 

 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 FINALLY ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because Movant has not made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 Dated this 20th day of January, 2016. 

Case 3:14-cv-08215-JAT Document 19 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 2