Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00130/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00130-1/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

- 1 - 07cv0130W

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MENDIOLA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07-CV-0130 W (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. Nos. 18,19.)

vs.

W.J. SULLIVAN, WARDEN,

Respondent.

On January 19, 2007 Petitioner Michael Mendiola (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, filed a habeas corpus petition seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The original habeas petition argued 5 grounds for relief. (Doc. No. 1.) On April 26,

2007 Petitioner filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which only argued a single

ground for relief. (Doc. No. 10.) On May 8, 2007 Magistrate Judge Jan Adler issued

a briefing schedule establishing a June 18, 2007 deadline for Respondent to file a motion

to dismiss. (Doc. No. 14.) On June 20, 2007 Respondent successfully moved to extend

the deadline to July 18, 2007. (Doc. No. 17.) On July 5, 2007 Respondent finally filed

their motion to dismiss, roughly ten weeks after the Petitioner filed their FAC. 

On September 24, 2007 Magistrate Judge Adler issued his Report and

Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be

denied. (Doc. No. 19.) The Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed by

Case 3:07-cv-00130-W-JMA Document 20 Filed 11/29/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 07cv0130W

October 12, 2007, and any reply filed by October 26, 2007. To date, no objections have

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

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. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003)(holding that 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c) “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”)(emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1226 (D. Arizona 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District

Court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s Report). This rule of law is

well established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416

F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005)(“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only

required when an objection is made to the R & R.”)(emphasis added)(citing RenyaTapia, 328 F.3d 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005)

(Lorenz, J.) (adopted Report without review because neither party filed objections to the

Report despite the opportunity to do so, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report

and Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155,

1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

///

///

///

The Court therefore accepts Judge Adler’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the

Case 3:07-cv-00130-W-JMA Document 20 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 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

1

Further, the Court suggests that Respondent take better care to recognize this habeas petition’s operative pleading, especially in light of the Court’s previous willingness to grant filing extensions.

- 3 - 07cv0130W

Report in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein

by reference, the Court DENIES Respondent’s motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 18].1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 29, 2007

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00130-W-JMA Document 20 Filed 11/29/07 Page 3 of 3