Begay v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

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

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

11 v. ORDER

12 United States of America,

13 Respondent. 14 15 Before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set 16 Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1) and United States 17 Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 14). 18 The R&R recommends that the Court deny and dismiss the motion with prejudice. The 19 Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the 20 R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to 21 obtain review of the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 22 Cir. 2003). Neither party filed objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 23 review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 24 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 25 not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 26 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 27 objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. 28 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 3 || may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 4|| return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 5 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 14) is ACCEPTED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s motion (Doc. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed 9|| in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal of the 2255 motion is 10 || justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling 11 |} debatable. 12 Dated this 2nd day of December, 2021. 13 14 15 {Z, 17 Uaited States Dictric Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-