Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02313/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02313-2/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

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 06cv2313

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALVIN WRIGHT

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06cv2313-BEN (POR)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

vs. AND RECOMMENDATION 

DON TAYLOR, WARDEN,

Respondent.

This is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondent has moved to dismiss the

Petition on the grounds of non-exhaustion of state remedies On July 9, 2007, Magistrate Judge

Louisa S. Porter issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion to dismiss

be denied. No objections have been filed. For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the wellreasoned Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, denies Respondent’s Motion to

Dismiss and directs Respondent to file an Answer and show cause why the writ should not be

granted.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision” of a Magistrate

Judge on a dispositive matter. F.R.C.P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Moreover, “the

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to

which objection is made.” Id. “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....Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo,

Case 3:06-cv-02313-BEN-POR Document 11 Filed 09/14/07 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

- 2 - 06cv2313

findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), cert denied, 157 L.Ed.2d 182 (2003)(emphasis in

original).

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge correctly considered the

Petitioner’s efforts to exhaust his state remedies and determined that all of the issues were

exhausted. This Court adopts in full the Report and Recommendation. 

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is Denied. Respondent is directed to file an Answer and

shoe cause why the writ should not be granted and to do so no later than October 22, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 14, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02313-BEN-POR Document 11 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 2