Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01972/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01972-1/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

- 1 - 09cv1972

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS GOMEZ

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09-CV-1972W (JMA)

ORDER:

1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

WITHOUT OBJECTION

[DOC. 14] 

2) DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

[DOC. 8]

vs.

LARRY SMALLS, et al., 

Respondents.

On September 8, 2009, Petitioner Louis Gomez (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.)

Respondents have moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 8.) On June 16, 2010, Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler filed a Report

and Recommendation (“Report”) to deny Respondents’ motion to dismiss. The Report

also ordered that any objections were to be filed by July 2, 2010, and any reply filed by

July 16, 2010. (Doc. No. 8 at 4:12-17.) To date, no objection has been filed, nor has

there been a request for additional time in which to file an objection.

Case 3:09-cv-01972-W-JMA Document 15 Filed 07/08/10 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 - 09cv1972

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed,

the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003)(holding that 28 U.S.C.636(b)(1)(c) “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”)(emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D.

Arizona 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no

obligation to review the magistrate judge’s Report). This rule of law is well established

within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13

(9th Cir. 2005)(“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection

is made to the R & R.”)(emphasis added)(citing Renya-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1121); Nelson v.

Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopted Report without

review because neither party filed objections to the Report despite the opportunity to do

so, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.”);

see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 

Accordingly, the Court accepts Magistrate Judge Adler’s recommendation and

ADOPTS the Report in its entirety. (Doc. No.14.) For the reasons stated in the Report,

which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court DENIES Respondents’ motion to

dismiss. (Doc. No. 8.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 7, 2010

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01972-W-JMA Document 15 Filed 07/08/10 Page 2 of 2