Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01182/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01182-1/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

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

ROBERT LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

K. HARRINGTON, Warden, CDCR, and

KAMALA HARRIS, Attorney General of the

State of California,

Respondents.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv1182 AJB (BGS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; DENYING

PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS; AND

DENYING REQUEST FOR

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal’s Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) recommending that the Court: (1) deny Lopez’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and (2)

deny Lopez’s request for an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. No. 21.) Neither party filed an objection to the

R&R. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district judge’s duties

in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district judge must “make a de

novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject,

or modify, in whole or in part, the finding or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in

the absence of timely objection(s), the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the

1 11cv1182

Case 3:11-cv-01182-AJB-BGS Document 22 Filed 01/22/13 Page 1 of 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

face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee

Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

Neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Skomal’s R&R. Having reviewed

the R&R, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Skomal’s analysis is thorough, well reasoned, and

contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Skomal’s Report

and Recommendation in its entirety; (2) DENIES Lopez’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and (3)

DENIES Lopez’s request for an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the Court directs that judgment be

entered DENYING the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

When a district court enters a final order adverse to the applicant in a habeas proceeding, it must

either issue or deny a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal a final order in a habeas

proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability is appropriate only where the

petitioner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Under this standard, the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists

could debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues

presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 474 (2000). Here, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate the

Court’s conclusion to deny the petition and, therefore, DENIES the certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 22, 2013

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

I:\Chambers Battaglia\DJ CASES\Even Numbers - Erin's Cases\1.Habeas Orders\11cv1182 Lopez R&R No Obj 2 11cv1182

Case 3:11-cv-01182-AJB-BGS Document 22 Filed 01/22/13 Page 2 of 2