Juarez-Torres v. USA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) (“R&R”) entered in this
matter by the assigned Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge has recommended that the
Motion be denied and dismissed with prejudice in both above-mentioned matters.
The Court has before it, Movant’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 5), Response to Movant’s Motion from the
Respondents (Doc. 15) and the Movant’s Reply (Doc. 18). Additionally, the Court is in
receipt of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 19), and
Movant’s Objections (Doc. 20).
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). When a party files a
timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R
that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires
specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It
Juan Carlos Juarez-Torres,
Movant,
v.
United States of America,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-24-02201-PHX-SPL (JZB)
No. CR-15-01211-04-PHX-SPL
ORDER
Case 2:24-cv-02201-SPL Document 21 Filed 06/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific
objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial
economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or
arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s
decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622
(9th Cir. 2000).
The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently
developed record. The Movant’s objections to the findings and recommendations have
been thoroughly considered.
After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches
the same conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge. The R&R will be adopted in full.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is
accepted and adopted by the Court.
2. That the Movant’s Objections (Doc. 20) are overruled.
3. That the Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 5) 24-CV-2201 and related matter 15-CR-1211-4 are
denied and dismissed with prejudice.
4. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis
on appeal are denied finding that Movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial
of a Constitutional right; and
///
///
///
Case 2:24-cv-02201-SPL Document 21 Filed 06/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this
action
Dated this 8th day of June 2026.
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cv-02201-SPL Document 21 Filed 06/09/26 Page 3 of 3