Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01692/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01692-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodrigo Contreras
Petitioner
Rodrigo Contreras-Ramirez
Petitioner
USA
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Rodrigo Contreras-Ramirez,

Defendant/Movant, 

v. 

USA, 

Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. CV-15-01692-PHX-GMS (BSB)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Movant’s claims 

of ineffective assistance of counsel and United States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade’s 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 2, 24. The R&R recommends that the 

Court grant the Motion. Doc. 24 at 3. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they 

had fourteen 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 16 (citing 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 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)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

Case 2:15-cv-01692-GMS Document 27 Filed 11/14/16 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 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is welltaken. The Court will accept the R&R and grant the Motion. 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)(3) (“The 

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Magistrate Judge Bade’s R&R (Doc. 24) is accepted. 

 2. The Government’s Motion to Dismiss Movant’s claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel (Doc. 22) is granted. 

 4. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, in the 

event Movant files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 14th day of November, 2016. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:15-cv-01692-GMS Document 27 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 2