Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00569/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00569-2/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)

---

15l'.PR 20 AM fO: 08 

V'fr1r !)!!l'l 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 DARREN LEE PATTON, JR., 

11 

12 vs. 

Petitioner, 

13 JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary, 

14 Res ondent. 

CASE NO. 14-CV-569-BEN (BLM) 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND 

GRANTING MOTION TO STAY 

[Docket Nos. 17,21] 

15 Petitioner Darren Lee Patton, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 

16 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No.1.) 

17 On December 22, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion to Stay. (Docket No. 17.) On 

18 January 22,2015, Respondent filed an Opposition and on February 9, 2015 

19 Petitioner filed a Reply. (Docket Nos. 19,20.) On February 27, 2015, the 

20 Magistrate Judge issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation 

21 recommending that the Motion to Stay be granted pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 

22 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Robbins v. Carey, 481 

23 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007). (Docket No. 21.) Objections to the Report and 

24 Recommendation were due by March 20, 2015. (/d.) No objections have been 

25 filed. For the reasons stated below, the Report and Recommendation is 

26 ADOPTED. 

27 A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" 

28 ofa magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 

- 1 - 14cv569 

Case 3:14-cv-00569-BEN-BLM Document 22 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 of 2
1 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). "[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the 

2 [report and recommendation] that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 

3 n(b )(3). However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review 

4 the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, 

5 but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 

6 2003) (en bane); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.l3 (9th Cir. 

7 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, 

8 de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 

9 correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

lOIn the absence of any objections, the Court fully ADOPTS the Report and 

11 Recommendation. The Motion to Stay is GRANTED. 

12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

13 

14 Dated: Apri~, 2015 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 2-

H~ R T. BENIT~ 

United States District Judge 

14cv569 

Case 3:14-cv-00569-BEN-BLM Document 22 Filed 04/20/15 Page 2 of 2