Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00580/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00580-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Devon Mitchell
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

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 

Devon Mitchell, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Respondent.

No. CV-11-00580-PHX-DGC

 CR-05-0886-PHX-DGC 

ORDER 

 Petitioner Devon Mitchell has filed a motion asking the Court to consider his 

Rule 60(b) motion as timely filed. Doc. 22. After examining the Court’s dockets, the 

Court finds that Petitioner filed his Rule 60(b) motion in his criminal case (CR-05-0886, 

Doc. 335), not in this habeas case. Even if the Court were to deem the motion as timely 

filed, however, the Court would deny it. 

 Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion restates argument B from his habeas petition – that 

the government failed to present sufficient evidence at trial to show that the banks he 

robbed were federally insured. See Doc. 2 at 8-9. Judge Aspey found that this argument 

had been procedurally defaulted because it was not raised on appeal. Doc. 11. In his 

objection, Petitioner stated that he “reincorporates” argument B and “totally relies on the 

arguments and legal authority” stated in his petition. Doc. 16 at 2. This was not an 

effective objection to Judge Aspey’s order because it did not address any defect in that 

order. Indeed, it did not even address the reason for Judge Aspey’s rejection of argument 

B – that it was barred by Petitioner’s failure to raise it on appeal. 

Case 2:11-cv-00580-DGC Document 24 Filed 07/26/13 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 

 An objection that is general or imprecise is not an effective objection to a report 

and recommendation. Because Petitioner did not make specific objections to Judge 

Aspey’s findings and recommendations on argument B as required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1), his objection was ineffective. This conclusion comports with the 

requirement of Rule 72(b) that a district judge make a de novo determination of any 

portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which “specific written objections” have 

been made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see Sullivan v. Schriro, No. CV–0404–1517, 

2006 WL 1516005 (D. Ariz. May 30, 2006). The Court had no obligation to review 

Petitioner’s general objection to Judge Aspey’s recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (no review at all is required for “any issue that is not the 

subject of an objection.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2003) (same). 

 Moreover, Judge Aspey correctly concluded that argument B was procedurally 

defaulted. See Doc. 11. 

 Because Petitioner’s incorrectly-filed Rule 60(b) motion would fail on its merits in 

any event, the Court will deny as moot his motion to deem it timely filed in this case. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Petitioner Devon Mitchell’s motion to deem Rule 60(b) motion as timely 

filed (Doc. 22) is denied. 

 2. Petitioner shall file no further motions in this action. 

 Dated this 26th day of July, 2013. 

Case 2:11-cv-00580-DGC Document 24 Filed 07/26/13 Page 2 of 2