Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cr-00334/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cr-00334-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Julian Salas-Quiz
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

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

1

 Defendant, proceeding on a pro se basis, filed a document titled, “Petition for Writ of

Error Coram Nobis to Vacate Conviction and Sentence Due to Ineffective Assistance of

Counsel,” which the Magistrate Judge properly construed as a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Julian Salas-Quiz,

Defendant. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 03-0334-PHX-SMM

 CV 04–3072-PHX-SMM (BPV)

ORDER

On April 5, 2006, Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco filed a Report and

Recommendation advising this Court that Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (the “Motion”)1

 (Dkt. 26) is denied on the grounds that

it is barred by the statute of limitations governing the filing of motions for collateral relief by

prisoners in federal custody and there is no equitable basis for tolling the period of limitations.

(Dkt. 39.) To date, Defendant has not filed objections to Judge Velasco’s Report and

Recommendation.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court must

“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

Case 2:03-cr-00334-SMM Document 40 Filed 09/25/06 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 -

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391,

1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983)). 

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives his right to

challenge the Magistrate’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate’s legal

conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.

1998) (failure to object to Magistrate’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in

considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980)).

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed Defendant’s filing and, thereafter, having reviewed the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the record de novo, and no objections having been

made by Defendant thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco. (Dkt. 39.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall

terminate this action accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this

Order to all parties as well as to Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco.

DATED this 25th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:03-cr-00334-SMM Document 40 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 2