Fox v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

Tim W ayne Fox, ) No. CV-24-00299-PHX-SPL (ASB) ) No. CR-22-01604-PHX-SPL 9 ) 10 Movant, ) v. ) 11 ) ) ORDER 12 United States of America, ) ) 13 Respondents. ) ) 14 )

15 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) (“R&R”) entered in this matter 16 by the assigned Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge has recommended that the Motion 17 of Mr. Fox be denied and dismissed with prejudice in both above listed matters. 18 The Court has before it, Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1), Response to Movant’s Motion from the 20 Respondents (Doc. 4) and the Movant’s Reply. (Doc. 5) Additionally, the Court is in 21 receipt of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 7), and Movant’s 22 Objections (Doc. 8). 23 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 24 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a 25 timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R 26 that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires 27 specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United 28 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It 1 follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific 2 objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 3 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial 4 economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or 5 arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s 6 decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 7 (9th Cir. 2000). 8 The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently 9 developed record. The Movant’s objections to the findings and recommendations have 10 been thoroughly considered. 11 After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches 12 the same conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge. The R&R will be adopted in full. 13 Accordingly, 14 IT IS ORDERED: 15 1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) is 16 accepted and adopted by the Court. 17 2. That the Movant’s Objections (Doc. 8) are overruled. 18 3. That the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Sentence pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) 24-CV-00299 and related matter 22-CR-01604 are denied and 20 dismissed with prejudice. 21 4. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis 22 on appeal are denied finding that Mr. Fox has not made a substantial showing of the denial 23 of a Constitutional right; and 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 5. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this 2 action 3 Dated this 11" day of September 2024. 4

6 United States District kadge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28