From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garcia-Hurtado v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
May 2, 2017
No. CV-16-00457-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz. May. 2, 2017)

Opinion

No. CV-16-00457-PHX-GMS

05-02-2017

Carlos Antonio Garcia-Hurtado, Petitioner, v. USA, Respondent.


ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence and United States Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Docs. 1, 21). The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Motion (Doc. 21 at 4). 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. Id. at 4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

The parties did not file 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."). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well- taken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Motion. 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 HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Duncan's R&R (Doc. 21) is accepted.

2. Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Doc. 1) is denied.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

4. In the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Dated this 2nd day of May, 2017.

/s/_________

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Garcia-Hurtado v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
May 2, 2017
No. CV-16-00457-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz. May. 2, 2017)
Case details for

Garcia-Hurtado v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Carlos Antonio Garcia-Hurtado, Petitioner, v. USA, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: May 2, 2017

Citations

No. CV-16-00457-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz. May. 2, 2017)