Flores-Cordova v. USA

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 6 Report and Recommendation. The Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1 ) (CR-15-00919-PHX-SPL Doc. 29) is den ied; This case is dismissed with prejudice; A certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. The Clerk shall file this Order in the underlying related criminal action (CR-15-00919-PHX-SPL) and enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 7/7/17. (DXD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

United States of America,

9
10

Plaintiff,
vs.

11
12

Luis Ramon Flores-Cordova,
Defendant/Movant.

13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-16-04389-PHX-SPL
(No. CR-15-00919-PHX-SPL)
ORDER

15

Movant Luis Ramon Flores-Cordova has filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

16

Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

17

(“Motion”) (Doc. 1). On June 13, 2017, the Honorable John Z. Boyle, United States

18

Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that

19

the Court deny the Motion. Judge Boyle advised the parties that they had fourteen (14)

20

days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be

21

considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. (Doc. 6); 28 U.S.C. §

22

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

23

Cir. 2003).

24

The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to

25

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

26

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not… require any review at all… of any issue that is

27

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must

28

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

1

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-

2

taken. The Court will adopt the R&R and deny the Motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

3

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

4

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The

5

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

6

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

7

IT IS ORDERED:

8

1. That Magistrate Judge Boyle’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) is

9

accepted and adopted by the Court;

10

2. That the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in

11

Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (CV-16-04389-PHX-SPL, Doc. 1; Doc.

12

29, CR-15-00919-PHX-SPL) is denied;

13

3. That this case is dismissed with prejudice;

14

4. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

15

appeal are denied because jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling

16

debatable;
5. That the Clerk of Court shall file this Order in the underlying related criminal

17
18

action, Case No. CR-15-00919-PHX-SPL; and
6. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this

19
20
21

action.
Dated this 7th day of July, 2017.

22
23

Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2