Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05013/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05013-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Plaintiff
Mateo Villasenor
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF / RESPONDENT

v. Civil No. 06-50004

 

MATEO VILLASENOR DEFENDANT / PETITIONER

O R D E R

NOW on this 23rd day of April 2007, the above referenced matter

comes on for the Court’s consideration and the Court, being well and

sufficiently advised in the matter, finds and orders as follows:

1. On January 17, 2007, Mateo Villasenor, petitioner, filed his

Motion To Vacate Sentence (document #35) per 28 U.S. C. Section 2255.

The United States responded to the motion by filing a response on

February 20, 2007 (document #37). On that same date of February 20,

2007, the Court referred the matter to U.S. Magistrate Judge James R.

Marschewski, for a Report and Recommendation to this Court concerning

the disposition of the said motion.

2. While the matter was under consideration by the Magistrate

Judge -- and some thirty days after the United States had filed a

proper response to petitioner’s motion -- petitioner filed with the

Court a pleading called Motion For Extension Of Time To File Reply

(document #39 -- hereinafter called “Motion For Extension”), in which

he says that, because of circumstances beyond his control, he did not

have a chance to file a “proper reply” to the Response of the Untied

States. This motion for extension of time to file a reply was dated

March 22, 2007, but not filed until April 2, 2007.

3. On March 23, 2007, the Report and Recommendation of the

Case 5:07-cv-05013-JLH Document 3 Filed 04/23/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

Magistrate Judge -- dated March 22, 2007 (document #38 -- herein

called R&R) -- was filed herein. The R&R provided that the parties

would have ten (10) days from the receipt thereof within which to file

written objections to the same. This R&R was filed before the Court

had received or knew about petitioner’s said Motion for Extension.

4. By a pleading dated the “5rd” (sic) of April, 2007,

petitioner filed his Objections to Report and Recommendations of March

22, 2007 (document #40).

5. On April 11, 2007, the United States filed its United States’

Response To Petitioner’s Objection To Report And Recommendations By The

United States Magistrate Judge (document #41-1).

6. First, the Court will address petitioner’s Motion for

Extension.

Litigants may not file reply briefs with the Court as a matter of

right and the Court neither invited nor permitted petitioner to do so

in this instance. Moreover, the Court’s review of petitioner’s motion,

the response of the United States and the R&R by the Magistrate Judge

persuades it that the issues raised in this proceeding were fully

developed by the pleadings and comprehensively addressed by the

Magistrate Judge’s R&R. Accordingly, the Court had no need for a reply

from petitioner and would not have permitted one to be filed had

petitioner requested such. The Motion for Extension, therefore, will

be denied.

7. Turning now to the R&R; petitioner’s objections thereto and

the response of the United States to those objections, the Court finds

that the petitioner’s objections are without merit and should be

Case 5:07-cv-05013-JLH Document 3 Filed 04/23/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

overruled. The Court further finds that nothing in the objections

offer any basis -- either in law or fact -- which would require

departure from the findings and recommendations in the said R&R.

Accordingly, the said R&R should and will be adopted in toto. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time to

File Reply (document #39) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s objections to the said

R&R be, and they hereby are, overruled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report And Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (document #38) is adopted in toto and, pursuant

thereto:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant motion, filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255, should be, and it hereby is, dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-05013-JLH Document 3 Filed 04/23/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>