Catalan-Roman v. USA

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 Report and Recommendation and denying 1 Motion to Vacate. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez on 12/2/2013.(PMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
LORENZO VLADIMIR CATALAN-ROMAN,
Petitioner,
v.

CIV. NO. 11-1212 (PG)
(Re: Criminal No. 02-117(PG))

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

ORDER
Before the court is Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docket No. 1) filed on
February 24, 2011. As per this court’s request, on October 24, 2013,
Magistrate-Judge Justo Arenas entered a Report and Recommendation (“Report”
or “R&R”) recommending that the petition be denied and warning the parties
that they had ten (10) days, that is, until November 12, 2013, to file any
objections to the R&R. See Docket No. 9. Petitioner filed his objections to
the R&R. See Docket No. 10.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B), FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b), and Local
Rule 72, a District Court may refer dispositive motions to a Magistrate
Judge for a Report and Recommendation. See Alamo Rodriguez v. Pfizer
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 286 F.Supp.2d 144, 146 (D.P.R. 2003). The adversely
affected

party

may

“contest

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

report

and

recommendation by filing objections ‘within ten days of being served’ with
a copy of the order.” U.S. v. Mercado Pagan, 286 F.Supp.2d 231, 233 (D.P.R.
2003)(quoting 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)).
If objections are timely filed, the District Judge shall “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendations to which [an] objection is made.” Felix Rivera de Leon v.
Maxon Engineering Services, Inc., 283 F.Supp.2d 550, 555 (D.P.R. 2003). The
Court can “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate,” however, if the affected party
fails to timely file objections, “the district court can assume that they
have agreed to the magistrate’s recommendation.” Alamo Rodriguez, 286
F.Supp.2d at 146 (citation omitted). In fact, no review is required of
those issues to which objections are not timely raised. Thomas v. Arn, 474

Civ. No. 11-1212 (PG)

U.S. 140 (1985);

Page 2

Borden

v. Secretary

of Health,

836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st

Cir.1987).
A careful reading of Petitioner’s objections reveals that he is
relying on his allegation that he has been unable to properly perfect his
Section 2255 petition because he has yet to receive a copy of his case
files and trial transcripts from his former attorney. See Docket No. 10.
Petitioner’s objection to the Report based on his unpreparedness at the
time he filed his motion almost three years ago is unavailing inasmuch as
he has had ample time to amass the necessary information and documentation.
In addition, Petitioner also sets out additional new arguments as grounds
for his objections, which, at this juncture, are belated. Therefore,
Petitioner’s motion is denied as to all of his claims.
Finally, upon de novo review, we find no fault with Magistrate Judge’s
assessment and thus APPROVE and ADOPT his Report and Recommendation as our
own. Consequently, Petitioner’s motion (Dockets No. 1) is DENIED and the
above captioned action will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Judgment shall be
entered accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, December 2, 2013.
S/ JUAN M. PÉREZ-GIMÉNEZ
JUAN M. PÉREZ-GIMÉNEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE