Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01547/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01547-2/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

17cv1547

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL E. MAAS,

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD RACKLEY,

Respondent.

Case No. 3:17-cv-1547-BAS(JMA)

ORDER:

(1) APPROVING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS 

ENTIRETY (ECF No. 13); AND

(2) GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS (ECF No. 8)

Petitioner Michael E. Maas, a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1998 convictions 

in San Diego Superior Court Case Nos. SCE185960 and SCE188460 for grand theft, 

unlawful taking of a vehicle, burglary and forgery. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner initially filed 

this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but he is a state prisoner attacking the validity of 

a California State court conviction and sentence and cannot proceed under section 2241. 

Instead, the Court construed this action as one brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See 

ECF No. 3). See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that 

Case 3:17-cv-01547-BAS-JMA Document 14 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv1547

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

section 2254 is the proper jurisdictional basis for a habeas petition brought by an individual 

“in custody pursuant to a state court judgment”). 

On November 28, 2017, Respondent Ronald Rackley filed a motion to dismiss. 

(ECF No. 8.) On June 19, 2018, Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler considered this motion 

and issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”). (ECF No. 13.) Judge Adler 

recommends that this Court grant the motion to dismiss. (Id.) The magistrate judge ordered 

that any objections to the R&R be filed no later than July 6, 2018, and that any replies to 

the objections be filed no later than July 20, 2018. (R&R at 9.) To date, Petitioner has not 

filed any objections or requests for additional time to do so. 

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are made. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But “[t]he 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. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 

F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, 

the district court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the 

Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and 

recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. “When no objections 

are filed, the de novo review is waived.” Marshall v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-1735, 2010 WL 

841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without 

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

so).

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was July 6, 2018. However, Petitioner 

has not filed any objections or requests for additional time to do so. Consequently, the 

Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Having 

nonetheless reviewed the R&R, the Court agrees with the R&R’s recommendations. 

Additionally, though Magistrate Judge Adler did not state whether to grant Respondent’s 

Case 3:17-cv-01547-BAS-JMA Document 14 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv1547

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

request to dismiss with or without leave to amend, the Court finds that granting the request 

without leave to amend is appropriate. Magistrate Judge Adler recommended granting the 

motion to dismiss based on three incurable deficiencies: (1) the petition was successive;1

(2) certain claims were barred by Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 

394 (2001); and (2) the petition was untimely. (R&R at 5-7.) Considering these grounds

for dismissal, granting Petitioner leave to amend would be futile.

Accordingly, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (ECF 

No. 13). The Court therefore GRANTS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Respondent’s 

motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 8.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 19, 2018

 

1 Magistrate Judge Adler found that the Court is barred from considering a 

successive petition, absent an order from the Ninth Circuit authorizing the Court to 

consider a successive petition. (R&R at 5.) Judge Adler also found that “there is no 

indication that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Petitioner leave to file a 

successive petition.” (Id.)

Case 3:17-cv-01547-BAS-JMA Document 14 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3