Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02565/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02565-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gilberto Jimenez-Najera
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gilberto Jimenez-Najera, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

USA, 

Respondent. 

No. CV-15-02565-PHX-GMS

No. CR-14-01418-001-PHX-GMS 

ORDER 

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

Sentence under 28 U.S.C. ¶ 2255 and United States Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan’s 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 1, 6. The R&R recommends that the 

Court deny Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence. Doc. 6 at 6. 

The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) 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 7 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 

6(b); 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 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is wellCase 2:15-cv-02565-GMS Document 7 Filed 06/13/16 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 

taken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or 

Correct Sentence. 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 Duncan’s R&R (Doc. 6) is accepted. 

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

denied. 

 3. Petitioner’s Motion for Award of Relief Requested (Doc. 5) is denied. 

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

accordingly. 

 5. 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 13th day of June, 2016. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02565-GMS Document 7 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 2