Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01974/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01974-1/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

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

09cv1974

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR HUGO ESPARZA,

Petitioner,

v.

J. SCHOMIG, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv1974 L(JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Victor Hugo Esparza, a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and later filed an amended petition. The case was referred to

United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for a report and recommendation (“Report”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d). In the Report, the magistrate

judge recommended the granting of respondent’s motion to dismiss the first amended petition. 

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the Report. Objections to the

Report were to be filed by December 27, 2010. To date, neither party has filed an objection. 

In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court “shall

make a de novo 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, “the district judge must

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but

Case 3:09-cv-01974-L-JMA Document 17 Filed 01/06/11 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 09cv1974

not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(emphasis in original); see Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz.

2003) (applying Reyna-Tapia to habeas review). 

No objections having been filed, IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and

Recommendation in its entirety and granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the first amended

petition for writ of habeas corpus. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the

Court to enter judgment in accordance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 6, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. JAN M. ADLER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:09-cv-01974-L-JMA Document 17 Filed 01/06/11 Page 2 of 2