Opinion
Nos. CV 03-1648-PHX-ROS-12, CR 97-0237.
July 21, 2006
ORDER
On August 25, 2003 Petitioner (Defendant #12) filed a Motion To Vacate/Set Aside Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. #1186-1, CR 97-0237). On March 30, 2005 Magistrate Judge Anderson issued a Report and Recommendation ("RR") recommending that the motion be denied (Doc. #1274, CR 97-0237). No objections were filed by either party.
The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is "clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ( en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1126 (D. Ariz. 2003) ("Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, `but not otherwise."'). District courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). No objection having been made, the Court will adopt the RR in full.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #1274, CR 97-0237) is ADOPTED and the Motion To Vacate (Doc. #1186-1, CR 97-0237) DENIED.