Mendoza-Romero v. United States of America

Filing 14

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 . ORDER that the defendant/movant's Amended Motion Under 28:2255 (doc. #9 in CV 09-129-PHX-PGR) is denied and that this action is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 11/10/09. (TLJ)

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, vs. Plaintiff/Respondent,

Alvaro Mendoza-Romero, Defendant/Movant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-09-0129-PHX-PGR (LOA) No. CR-08-0871-PHX-PGR ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Anderson's Report and Recommendation (doc. #13), filed September 28, 2009, wherein he recommends that the defendant/movant's motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be denied. Magistrate Judge Anderson expressly advised the parties in the Report and Recommendation that they had ten days from the date of service of the Report and Recommendation in which to file specific objections to it. A review of the record establishes that neither party has to date filed any objection to the Report and Recommendation and their time for doing so has expired.1 The statute governing the Court's duty in reviewing a magistrate judge's

1

The Court's docket establishes that the Clerk of the Court mailed a copy of the Report and Recommendation to the defendant/movant at his address of record on September 28, 2009.

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

report and recommendation, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), makes it clear that a district judge is obligated to conduct a de novo if an objection is made, "but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc); accord, Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir.2005) ("Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.") Since no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed in this action, the Court declines to conduct a de novo review. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (doc. #13) is accepted and adopted by the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant/movant's Amended Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (doc. #9 in CV-09-0129-PHX-PGR) is denied and that this action is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. DATED this 10th day of November, 2009.

-2-