Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02607/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02607-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

18cv2607-CAB-WVG

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENO GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

W.L. MONTGOMERY, Warden, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv2607-CAB-WVG

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING

PETITION AND DENYING 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

On November 13, 2018, Petitioner Geno Gomez (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, [Doc. No. 1.] On February 22, 2019, Respondent filed a

motion to dismiss the petition. [Doc. Nos. 8 and 9.] Petitioner did not file a response. 

On July 11, 2019, Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Court dismiss the Petition without 

prejudice to Petitioner pursuing his claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983. [Doc. No. 10.] The 

Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed by August 16, 2019. [Report at 

9.] To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in 

which to file an objection.

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 

Case 3:18-cv-02607-CAB-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv2607-CAB-WVG

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

Federal rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are 

filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may 

“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 

the magistrate judge.” Id. However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge 

must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is 

made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Cir.2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute 

requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the 

parties themselves accept as correct.” Id.

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to the Report. Having reviewed it, 

the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Gallo’s Report and 

Recommendation [Doc. No. 10] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, 

which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without 

prejudice to Petitioner pursuing his claim in a separate action under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Moreover, because the Court does not believe that reasonable jurists would find the 

Court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong it DECLINES to 

issue a Certificate of Appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02607-CAB-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2