Sloan v. USA

Filing 25

ORDER that Magistrate Judge Burns' R&R 24 is ACCEPTED. Movant's second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 7 is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and terminate this case. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 11/19/2020. (REK)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Kendrick Talbert Sloan,
Movant/Defendant,

10

No. CV-19-08182-PCT-DLR
No. CR-13-08198-PCT-DLR
ORDER

11

v.

12

United States of America,

13

Respondent/Plaintiff.

14
15

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and

16

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 24), which recommends that Movant’s second amended

17

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be denied and dismissed

18

with prejudice and that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma

19

pauperis on appeal be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had

20

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

21

be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States v.

22

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Neither party filed objections, which

23

relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121;

24

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any

25

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P.

26

72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s

27

disposition that has been properly objected to.”). “Unless this court has definite and firm

28

conviction that the [Magistrate Judge] committed a clear error of judgment, [this court]

1

will not disturb [the] decision.” Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir.

2

1990) (citation omitted).

3

The Court has nonetheless independently reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-

4

taken. The Court therefore will accept the R&R in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns’ R&R (Doc. 24) is ACCEPTED.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant’s second amended petition for writ of

11

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 7) is DENIED and DISMISSED

12

WITH PREJUDICE.

13
14
15
16
17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment
and terminate the case.
Dated this 19th day of November, 2020.

18
19
20
21
22

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-