Sloan v. USA
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Kendrick Talbert Sloan,
United States of America,
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 24), which recommends that Movant’s second amended
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be denied and dismissed
with prejudice and that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had
fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could
be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Neither party filed objections, which
relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121;
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any
review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.”). “Unless this court has definite and firm
conviction that the [Magistrate Judge] committed a clear error of judgment, [this court]
will not disturb [the] decision.” Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir.
1990) (citation omitted).
The Court has nonetheless independently reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-
taken. The Court therefore will accept the R&R in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The
district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns’ R&R (Doc. 24) is ACCEPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant’s second amended petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 7) is DENIED and DISMISSED
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.
Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?