Bigman v. USA

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 13 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Movant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1 ) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; and the Clerk shall enter judgment. A Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because jurists of reason would not find the Court's procedural decision debatable or wrong. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 5/10/17. (LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Victor Bigman,
Movant/Defendant,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-8122-PCT-JAT
CR-11-8156-PCT-JAT

USA,

13

Respondent/Plaintiff.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct

16

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report

17

and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 13) recommending that the Motion be denied.

18

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby

19

accepts the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district

20

courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the

21

subject of an objection” (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

22

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review

23

the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but

24

not otherwise” (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d

25

1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

26

Accordingly,

27

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.

28

13) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED;

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or

2

Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE;

3

and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

4

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to

5

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because jurists of reason would not find

6

the Court’s procedural decision debatable or wrong.

7

Dated this 10th day of May, 2017.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-