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

 

 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) (“R&R”) entered in matter 

18-CV-00727 by Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles. Magistrate Judge Bibles has 

recommended that Mr. Gonzalez-Loera’s Motion be denied and dismissed with prejudice 

in both matters 18-CV-00727 and 13-CR-01123(1). 

 The Court has before it, Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1), Response to Movant’s Motion from the 

Respondents (Doc. 8) and the Movant’s Reply. (Doc. 10) Additionally, the Court is in 

receipt of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 12), Movant’s 

Objections (Doc. 15), and the Response to the Objections from the Respondents. (Doc. 16) 

 A district judge “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). When a party files a 

timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R 

that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires 

specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United 

Roberto Gonzalez-Loera, 

 

Movant, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Respondent. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-18-00727-PHX-SPL (CDB) 

No. CR-13-01123(1)-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 
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 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It 

follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific 

objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial 

economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or 

arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s 

decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 

(9th Cir. 2000). 

 The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently 

developed record. The Movant’s objections to the findings and recommendations have 

been thoroughly considered. 

 After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches 

the same conclusions reached by Judge Bibles. This Court finds Judge Bibles has correctly 

concluded that trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective in their respective 

representations of the Movant. The R&R will be adopted in full. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) is 

accepted and adopted by the Court; 

2. That the Movant’s Objections (Doc. 15) are overruled; 

3. That the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Sentence pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) 18-CV-00727 and related matter 13-CR-01123(1) are denied and 

dismissed with prejudice; 

4. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

on appeal are denied finding that Mr. Gonzalez-Loera has not made a substantial showing 

of the denial of a Constitutional right; and 

/// 

/// 
3 

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 

5. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 13th day of May 2019.

Honorable Steven P. Logan 

United States District Judge