Opinion
CV-23-00578-PHX-DWL CR-19-00119-PHX-DWL
10-04-2023
Timothy Peter Ray, Petitioner, v. United States of America, Respondent.
ORDER
Dominic W. Lanza, United States District Judge
Pending before the Court are Petitioner's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 6). The R&R, which was issued on September 14, 2023, recommended that the § 2255 motion be dismissed with prejudice and further provided that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 6 at 8.)
Here, no such objections have been filed. Thus, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the R&R's recommended disposition (Doc. 6) is accepted, that the Petition (Doc. 1) is dismissed with prejudice, and that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because dismissal is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.