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. 62) (“R&R”) entered in matter 

20-CV-00173 by Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine. Magistrate Judge Fine has

recommended that the Motion of Mr. Mogler be denied and dismissed with prejudice in 

both matters 20-CV-00173 and 15-CR-01118. 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docs. 1, 16 and 16-1 (with all attachments)), Response to 

Movant’s Motion from the Respondents (Docs. 46 and 47 (with all attachments)) and the 

Movant’s Reply. (Docs. 61 and 61-1) Additionally, the Court is in receipt of the Report 

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 62) and Movant’s Objections. (Doc. 

68) The Court has considered Movant’s Request for Evidentiary Hearing and/or an Oral 

Argument. (Doc. 69)

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 

Jason Todd Mogler,

 

Movant, 

v. 

United States of America,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-20-00173-PHX-SPL (DMF)

No. CR-15-01118-PHX-SPL

ORDER

Case 2:15-cr-01118-SPL Document 761 Filed 12/08/21 Page 1 of 3
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

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 

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 Fine. This Court finds Judge Fine has correctly 

concluded that trial counsel was not ineffective in the representation of the Movant. 

Furthermore, the Court also finds that based on his knowing and voluntary guilty plea, he 

waived the grounds Movant articulated in his Amended Motion. The Movant’s Request 

for an Evidentiary Hearing and/or an Oral Argument (Doc. 69), will be denied. Based on 

the claims, the Movant has failed to establish that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. 

The issues raised again by Movant do not warrant reconsideration. All the issues have 

already been addressed by the Ninth Circuit or are without merit. 

The R&R will be adopted in full. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 62) is 

accepted and adopted by the Court;

2. That the Movant’s Objections (Doc. 68) are overruled;

3. That the Movant’s Request for an Evidentiary Hearing and/or an Oral 

Case 2:15-cr-01118-SPL Document 761 Filed 12/08/21 Page 2 of 3
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

Argument (Doc. 69) is denied; 

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

U.S.C. § 2255 (Docs. 1, 16 and 16-1) 20-CV-00173 and related matter 15-CR-01118 are

denied and dismissed with prejudice;

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

on appeal are denied finding that Mr. Mogler has not made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a Constitutional right; and

6. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and terminate this action.

Dated this 8

th day of December 2021.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

cc: Movant and Respondent

Case 2:15-cr-01118-SPL Document 761 Filed 12/08/21 Page 3 of 3