Opinion
No. CV-18-00727-PHX-SPL (CDB) No. CR-13-01123(1)-PHX-SPL
05-13-2019
Roberto Gonzalez-Loera, Movant, v. United States of America, Respondent.
ORDER
At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) ("R&R") entered in matter 18-CV-00727 by Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles. Magistrate Judge Bibles has recommended that Mr. Gonzalez-Loera's Motion be denied and dismissed with prejudice in both matters 18-CV-00727 and 13-CR-01123(1).
The Court has before it, Movant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1), Response to Movant's Motion from the Respondents (Doc. 8) and the Movant's Reply. (Doc. 10) Additionally, the Court is in receipt of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 12), Movant's Objections (Doc. 15), and the Response to the Objections from the Respondents. (Doc. 16)
A district judge "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). When a party files a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R that have been "properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court's decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 (9th Cir. 2000).
The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently developed record. The Movant's objections to the findings and recommendations have been thoroughly considered.
After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches the same conclusions reached by Judge Bibles. This Court finds Judge Bibles has correctly concluded that trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective in their respective representations of the Movant. The R&R will be adopted in full. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) is accepted and adopted by the Court;
2. That the Movant's Objections (Doc. 15) are overruled;
3. That the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) 18-CV-00727 and related matter 13-CR-01123(1) are denied and dismissed with prejudice;
4. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied finding that Mr. Gonzalez-Loera has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a Constitutional right; and /// ///
5. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.
Dated this 13th day of May 2019.
/s/_________
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge