Rubio-Vasquez v. U.S.

Full title: Rubio-Vasquez, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Jul 21, 2006

Nos. CV 05-2198-PHX-ROS, CR 01-0385 (D. Ariz. Jul. 21, 2006)

Opinion

Nos. CV 05-2198-PHX-ROS, CR 01-0385.

July 21, 2006

ORDER

ROSLYN SILVER, District Judge

On July 25, 2005 Plaintiff filed a Motion To Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. #33, CR 01-0385). On July 5, 2006, Magistrate Judge Duncan issued a Report and Recommendation ("RR") recommending that the motion be denied (Doc. #37, CR 01-0385). 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 (9^th 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. #37, CR 01-0385) is ADOPTED and the Motion To Vacate (Doc. #33, CR 01-0385) is DENIED.