Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02501/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02501-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gonzalo Tellez-Sanchez
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 

Gonzalo Tellez-Sanchez, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

United States of America, 

Respondent.

No. CV-13-02501-PHX-NVW (MEA)

ORDER 

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge Aspey (Doc. 14) regarding petitioner’s Motion for Return of Property 

(Doc. 1) filed pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The 

R&R recommends that the Motion for Return of Property (Doc. 1) be denied and 

dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 

fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 6 (citing Rule 72(b), 

Fed. R. Crim. P.)). No objections were filed. 

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) (“A 

Case 2:13-cv-02501-NVW-MEA Document 15 Filed 07/08/14 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 

party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a 

copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not 

timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 

(9th Cir. 1996); Phillips 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 

finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Motion for 

Return of Property (Doc. 1). 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 that Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 14) is accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 

and dismissing with prejudice Petitioner’s Motion for Return of Property (Doc. 1) filed 

pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure with prejudice. The 

Clerk shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 7th day of July, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02501-NVW-MEA Document 15 Filed 07/08/14 Page 2 of 2