Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02644/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02644-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Antonio Garibay-Mares
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs.

Jose Antonio Garibay-Mares, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2644 PHX-NVW (LOA)

No. CR 05-1260 PHX-NVW

ORDER

Before the Court is the defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 (doc. #1). The Government filed a Response, and

defendant filed no reply. On September 25, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge Lawrence

O. Anderson issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (doc. #6) recommending that

the defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence be denied. No objections

were filed to the R & R.

Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003);

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.”). The absence of a

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the

rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)

Case 2:07-cv-02644-NVW Document 7 Filed 10/20/08 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 -

(“Within 10 days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s order, a party may

serve and file objections to the order; a party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in

the magistrate judge’s order to which objection was not timely made.”); Simpson v. Lear

Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-

21 (9th Cir. 2002).

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the Court has reviewed the R&R and

agrees with it. The court will accept the R&R and deny the Motion. 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”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED accepting the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Anderson (doc. # 6).

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

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 (doc. #1) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02644-NVW Document 7 Filed 10/20/08 Page 2 of 2