Jones v. United States

D. Arizona

Jones v. United States

DecidedJanuary 23, 2024

Docket3:23-cv-08040

StatusUnknown

This text of Jones v. United States (Jones v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. United States, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

9 James Lee Jones, Jr., No. CR-19-08075-PCT-DWL No. CV-23-08040-PCT-DWL 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v.

12 United States of America,

13 Respondent. 14 15 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct 16 sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) and the report and recommendation 17 (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Bibles (Doc. 13). The R&R, which was issued on December 18 28, 2023, concluded that the motion should be denied and further provided that “the parties 19 shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation 20 within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 13 at 11.) 21 Here, no such objections have been filed. Thus, the Court accepts the Magistrate 22 Judge’s recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does 23 not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual 24 or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to 25 those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o 26 review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are 27 filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 28 (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 13) is accepted, that the § 2255 motion (Doc. 1) is denied, and that the Clerk shall enter judgment || accordingly. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to 7\| proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because Petitioner has not made a 8 || substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 9 Dated this 22nd day of January, 2024. 10 11 Lom ee” 12 f □□ □□ Dominic W. Lanza 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

9 James Lee Jones, Jr., No. CR-19-08075-PCT-DWL No. CV-23-08040-PCT-DWL 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v.

12 United States of America,

13 Respondent. 14 15 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct 16 sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) and the report and recommendation 17 (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Bibles (Doc. 13). The R&R, which was issued on December 18 28, 2023, concluded that the motion should be denied and further provided that “the parties 19 shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation 20 within which to file specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 13 at 11.) 21 Here, no such objections have been filed. Thus, the Court accepts the Magistrate 22 Judge’s recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does 23 not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual 24 or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to 25 those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o 26 review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are 27 filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 28 (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 13) is accepted, that the § 2255 motion (Doc. 1) is denied, and that the Clerk shall enter judgment || accordingly. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to 7\| proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because Petitioner has not made a 8 || substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 9 Dated this 22nd day of January, 2024. 10 11 Lom ee” 12 f □□ □□ Dominic W. Lanza 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jones v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-united-states-azd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack