Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cr-00621/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cr-00621-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Jesus Alvarez-Espinoza
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v.

Francisco Jesus Alvarez-Espinoza, 

Defendant-Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR04-0621 PHX DGC

CV05-2527-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff-Respondent Francisco Alvarez-Espinosa’s

Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255’s and United

States Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Dkt. ##24,

31. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the motion. Dkt. #31 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. ReynaTapia, 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) (“The district judge . . . shall make a de novo

determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific

written objection has been made[.]”). The Court will accept the R&R and deny the motion.

Case 2:04-cr-00621-DGC Document 33 Filed 11/13/06 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 -

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) (same).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’ R&R (Dkt. #31) is accepted.

2. Plaintiff-Respondent Francisco Jesus Alvarez-Espinoza’s Motion to Vacate,

Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. #24) is denied.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 9th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:04-cr-00621-DGC Document 33 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 2