Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00628/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00628-2/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 - 07cv0628

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL R. RANDLE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07-CV-0628-BEN (CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

vs. AND RECOMMENDATION 

JAMES TILTON, Secretary of the California

Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

Michael R. Randle, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent moved to dismiss the Petition as untimely. 

On December 31, 2007, Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo issued a Report and

Recommendation that the motion to dismiss be granted and the Petition be dismissed with

prejudice. Any party that wished to file objections had until February 4, 2008, to do so. As of the

date of this Order, no objections have been filed. For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts

the well-reasoned and thorough Report and Recommendation; grants Respondent’s Motion to

Dismiss; and dismisses the Petition with prejudice.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision” on a dispositive

matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all

purposes. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “The court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

Case 3:07-cv-00628-BEN-CAB Document 17 Filed 02/05/08 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 - 07cv0628

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Section 636(b)(1) does not require some lesser review by the district court

when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). 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.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in the original); see Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d

1219, 1225-26 & n. 5 (D. Ariz. 2003).

In the absence of any objections, this Court adopts in full the Report and Recommendation. 

Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 5, 2008

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00628-BEN-CAB Document 17 Filed 02/05/08 Page 2 of 2