Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01180/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01180-3/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

06cv1180

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIX McELROY,

Petitioner,

v.

ROY C. CASTRO, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv1180-L(AJB)

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

THE PETITION; DENYING

MOTION TO STAY; DENYING

MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT;

AND SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE [doc. # 23, 30, 32]

Petitioner Felix McElroy filed the above-captioned habeas corpus action on June 2, 2006. 

Respondents filed an answer to the petition on September 28, 2006. Thereafter, petitioner filed a

first amended petition on May 8, 2007 to which respondents filed a motion to dismiss [doc. #23].

While the motion to dismiss was pending, petitioner sought leave to file a second amended

petition [doc. #30] and a motion to stay [doc. #32]. 

Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered a Report and Recommendation (“Report”)

on December 11, 2007, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending petitioner’s motion for

leave to file a second amended petition be granted; petitioner’s motion for stay be denied; and

respondents’ motion to dismiss the first amended petition be denied as moot. Neither party filed 

objections to the Report within the time provided in the Report.

The district court’s role in reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district court “shall make a de novo

Case 3:06-cv-01180-L-AJB Document 41 Filed 01/10/08 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

1 The Court notes that the Second Amended Petition (“SAP”) was filed as a separate

document rather than as an exhibit to petitioner’s motion for leave to file a second amended

petition. As a result, the SAP was erroneously filed on September 24, 2007, because it was filed

without leave of court. Nevertheless, because the SAP has been filed, the Court will not require

petitioner to submit another SAP. Respondents are directed to the September 24, 2007 SAP in

preparing their answer.

2 06cv1180

determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge.” Id. Under this statute, “the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 238 (2003); see Schmidt

v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003) (applying Reyna-Tapia’s

holding to a habeas corpus proceeding).

Because the parties have not filed objections to the Report, and the magistrate judge has

carefully and fully considered the arguments of the parties, the Court will adopt the Report.

Based on the foregoing,

1. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED;

2. Petitioner’s motion to stay is DENIED;

3. Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend the petition is GRANTED. Petitioner’s

Second Amended Complaint filed September 24, 2007 [doc. #28] is deemed the

operative petition1

;

4. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended petition is DENIED AS MOOT;

5. Respondents shall file and serve on petitioner a return to the second amended

petition within twenty days of the filing of this Order.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01180-L-AJB Document 41 Filed 01/10/08 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

3 06cv1180

6. Petitioner shall file a traverse within twenty days of service of respondents’ return. 

Failure to timely file a traverse or to request an extension of time in which to do so

demonstrating good cause, will result in the magistrate judge issuing a Report and

Recommendation based upon the second amended petition and answer thereto.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 10, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-01180-L-AJB Document 41 Filed 01/10/08 Page 3 of 3