Begay v. United States

Opinion

Charlaine Helen Begay, No. CV-21-08124-PCT-DLR (MHB)

Petitioner, No. CR-18-08293-PCT-DLR

v. ORDER

United States of America,

Respondent. Before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1) and United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 14). The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the motion with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Neither party filed objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 14) is ACCEPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s motion (Doc. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal of the 2255 motion is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling } debatable. Dated this 2nd day of December, 2021. {Z, Uaited States Dictric Judge

_2-