Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02493/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02493-2/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 

~-------+--. 

FILED 

I MAR - 6 2020 I 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . CLERK JS o,,r.tt,~r,il;u•n SOUTHEfl.", c,s-~ltC'!' OF ,IVtFOHN t~ 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: BY I DEPU y 

10 JOSHUA SIEGEL, Case No.: 18-cv-2493-WQH-BGS 

ORDER 11 Petitioner, 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

V. 

ROBERT NEUSCHMID; 

XAVIER BECERRA, The 

Attorney General of the State of 

California, 

Respondents. 

17 HA YES, Judge: 

18 The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of . 

19 Habeas Corpus as Untimely filed by Respondent Robert Neuschmid (ECF No. 6) and the 

20 Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 9) recommending 

21 

22 

23 

that the Court grant Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. 

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 

magistrate judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 

24 U.S.C. § 636(b ). The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions 

25 of the report ... to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 

26 or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b )(1 ). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and 27 

28 recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wangv. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 

l 8-cv-2493-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:18-cv-02493-WQH-BGS Document 10 Filed 03/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

i. 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 

n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 

( en bane) ("Neither the Constitution nor the [Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 

review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 

correct.").-·-

No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 

reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) is 

adopted in its entirety. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is granted. The 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed. 

DATED: 

2 

WILLIAM Q. HAY 

United States Distr· Judge 

l 8-cv-2493-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:18-cv-02493-WQH-BGS Document 10 Filed 03/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2