Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00306/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00306-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jagdish Singh
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, 

v.

Jagdish Singh, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV07-306-PHX-DGC (HCE)

CR03-540 PHX DGC

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Movant/Defendant Jagdish Singh’s motion to vacate, set

aside or correct sentence by a person in federal custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and

United States Magistrate Judge Hector C. Estrada’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).

Dkt. ##1, 10. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the motion because Movant has

failed to establish that trial counsel was ineffective. Dkt. #10 at 18. The Magistrate Judge

advised the parties that they had ten 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 18-19 (citing 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)).

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

Case 2:07-cv-00306-DGC Document 12 Filed 04/16/09 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 -

Court will accept the R&R and deny Defendant/Movant’s 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”); 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 Hector C. Estrada’s R&R (Dkt. #10) is accepted.

2. Defendant/Movant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence by a

person in federal custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. #1) is denied.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 15th day of April, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-00306-DGC Document 12 Filed 04/16/09 Page 2 of 2