Calderon 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. 88; Sealed at Doc. 89) (“R&R”)
entered in this matter by Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf. Magistrate Judge Metcalf has
recommended that the Motion be denied and dismissed with prejudice in both matters CV-
23-08071-PCT-SPL and CR-18-08126-PCT-SPL-01.
The Court has before it, Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1), Response to Movant’s Motion from the Respondent
(Doc. 40; Doc. 46; Doc. 82; Doc. 83), Movant’s Reply (Doc. 76), Respondent’s
Supplemental Response (Doc. 80), and Movant’s Supplemental Reply (Doc. 87).
Additionally, the Court is in receipt of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge (Doc. 88; Sealed at Doc. 89), Movant’s Objections (Doc. 92) and the Response to
the Movant’s Objections from the Respondents (Doc. 93). The Court will not consider
Movant’s Sur-reply (Doc. 94) as such filings are not permitted under either the Rules of
Civil Procedure or the Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7, 72(b)(2); LRCiv. 7.2.
A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
Jaime Calderon,
Movant,
v.
United States of America,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-23-08071-PCT-SPL
No. CR-18-08126-PCT-SPL-01
ORDER
Case 3:23-cv-08071-SPL Document 95 Filed 01/29/26 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
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
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 Judge Metcalf. The R&R will be adopted in full.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 88; Sealed
at Doc. 89) is accepted and adopted by the Court;
2. That the Movant’s Objections (Doc. 92) are overruled;
3. That the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (CV-23-08071-PCT-SPL, Doc. 1; CR-18-08126-PCT-SPL-01, Doc. 202) is
denied and dismissed with prejudice;
///
///
///
Case 3:23-cv-08071-SPL Document 95 Filed 01/29/26 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
4. That a Certificate of Appealability is denied; and
5. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this
action.
Dated this 28th day of January, 2026.
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-08071-SPL Document 95 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 3