Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01164/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01164-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luis Alberto Cab-Suarez
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v.

Luis Alberto Cab-Suarez, 

Defendant-Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 07-0270-PHX-EHC

No. CV-07-1164-PHX-GMS (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendant-Movant’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus/civil rights complaint and United States Magistrate Judge Voss’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”). Dkt. # 17 (filed in CR-07-0270-PHX-EHC) and # 2. The

R&R recommends that the Court deny the petition/complaint because Movant’s

ineffective assistance of counsel claims in grounds one through three are waived by the

express waiver of a § 2255 motion in the plea agreement. Additionally, the court finds

that the claims are without merit. Dkt. # 2 at 5. 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 6

(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

Case 2:07-cv-01164-GMS Document 8 Filed 10/03/08 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 -

(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 welltaken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition/complaint. 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 Voss’s R&R (Dkt. #2) is accepted.

2. Defendant-Movant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus/complaint (Dkt.

#17) is denied.

3. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01164-GMS Document 8 Filed 10/03/08 Page 2 of 2