Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cr-00734/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cr-00734-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alvaro Reyes-Ramirez
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, 

vs.

Alvaro Reyes-Ramirez, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 03-734-PHX-ROS

 CV 04-2037-PHX-ROS (LOA)

ORDER

On September 27, 2004, Movant Alvaro Reyes-Ramirez filed a Motion to Vacate or

Set Aside Sentence. (Doc. 19) On September 19, 2005, Magistrate Judge Lawrence O.

Anderson issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Motion be

denied. (Doc. 44) Movant filed "objections" to the R&R. (Doc. 45) For the following

reasons, the Court will adopt the R&R and deny the Motion. 

The Court "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). It is "clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1126 (D. Ariz. 2003) ("Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, 'but not otherwise."'). District

Case 2:03-cr-00734-ROS Document 48 Filed 01/09/07 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 -

courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject

of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

Movant raised three claims in his Motion to Vacate: ineffective assistance of counsel,

violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, and denial of his right to due process during his

deportation. (Doc. 19) After extensive analysis, Magistrate Judge Anderson found that each

of these claims failed. Movant filed "objections" to the Magistrate Judge's conclusions. The

"objections," however, consisted merely of a recital of certain facts already accepted by the

Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 45) Movant presented no objections questioning the Magistrate

Judge's legal or factual basis for concluding he was not entitled to relief. Without valid

objections, this Court need not conduct de novo review of the R&R. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 44) is ADOPTED and the

Motion to Vacate (Doc. 19) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. 

DATED this 8th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:03-cr-00734-ROS Document 48 Filed 01/09/07 Page 2 of 2