U.S. v. Guzman-Lopez

Full title: United States of America, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joel Guzman-Lopez…

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Dec 7, 2005

CR 03-856-PHX-JAT, Case No. CV 04-2550-PHX-JAT (ECV) (D. Ariz. Dec. 7, 2005)

Opinion

CR 03-856-PHX-JAT, Case No. CV 04-2550-PHX-JAT (ECV).

December 7, 2005

ORDER

JAMES TEILBORG, District Judge

This 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) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.").

In this case, the Report and Recommendation was issued on October 21, 2005. Defendant/Movant has not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation. Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #26) is accepted and adopted; the Motion to vacate/set aside sentence (Doc. #22) is denied, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.