Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01106/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01106-1/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

17cv1106-LAB (BLM)

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

CHARLES J. MCCRAW,

Petitioner,

v.

N. MCDOWELL, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17cv1106-LAB (BLM)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner Charles McCraw filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 

U.S.C. ' 2254. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Major 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636. Respondent then moved to dismiss the petition on 

the grounds that the claims McCraw was raising were not cognizable on habeas 

review. On December 1, 2017, Judge Major issued her report and 

recommendation (the “R&R”), recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted 

and the petition dismissed without prejudiced to the claims being raised in a 

petition under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.

Objections to the R&R were due December 29, 2017 and the R&R warned 

the parties that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to raise them later on appeal. Since then, McCraw has filed no objections, 

nor sought additional time in which to do so.

Case 3:17-cv-01106-LAB-BLM Document 13 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv1106-LAB (BLM)

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

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and 

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge 

must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has 

been properly objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court shall make a de novo 

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 

recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “A judge of 

the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. The Court reviews de novo 

those portions of the R&R to which specific written objection is made. United States 

v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). “The 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.” Id.

Having considered the R&R, the Court finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the petition is DISMISSED

without prejudice to its claims being raised in a civil rights complaint under 42 

U.S.C. ' 1983 or another appropriate action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2018

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-01106-LAB-BLM Document 13 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2