United States District Court, D. Arizona
ROSLYN O. SILVER, Senior District Judge.
On January 10, 2014, Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence be denied. (Doc. 6). Shortly after the R&R was issued, Petitioner filed an "Amended Motion, " apparently trying to amend his original motion. On June 26, 2014, the Court informed Petitioner he needed to obtain "permission from the Court before amending his [motion]." (Doc. 9). But construing Petitioner's filing as a request to amend, the request was denied. (Doc. 9). Petitioner was then informed that if he wished to object to any portion of the R&R, he needed to do so within fourteen days of June 26, 2014. Petitioner made no further filings in this case, leaving the R&R unopposed.
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). Where any party has filed timely objections to an R&R, the district court's review of the objected to portions must be de novo. Id. If, however, no objections are filed, the district court need not conduct any review. 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."). No objections having been filed, the R&R will be adopted in full.
IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED. The Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (Doc. 1) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because denial of the motion is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable, or because Petitioner has ...