Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01488/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01488-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, SECRETARY

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv1488 AJB (KSC)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE, (Doc. No.

65); 

(2) DENYING THE SECOND

AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT

LEAVE TO AMEND, (Doc. No. 16);

and

(3) DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY. 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition (“SAP”) for

Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. No. 16.) Respondent filed an Answer arguing the Court

should deny the Petition. (Doc. No. 41.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate

Judge Karen S. Crawford, who issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on May,

8, 2014 recommending the Court deny the SAP. (Doc. No. 65). The R&R ordered that

any objections should be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the issuance of the

R&R. (Id. at 35.) That deadline has passed and Petitioner has not filed any objections. 

1 11cv1488

Case 3:11-cv-01488-AJB-KSC Document 67 Filed 06/23/14 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district

judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The

district judge must “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

finding or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see

also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the

absence of timely objection(s), the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear

error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b), Advisory Committee Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

 Having reviewed the report and recommendation, the Court finds that Magistrate

Judge Crawford’s R&R is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Crawford’s Report and Recommendation; and (2) DENIES Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition without leave to

amend. Therefore, the Court directs that judgment be entered DENYING the Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

When a district court enters a final order adverse to the applicant in a habeas

proceeding, it must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability, which is required to

appeal a final order in a habeas proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of

appealability is appropriate only where the petitioner makes "a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). 

Under this standard, the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists could debate

whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues

presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. 28 U.S.C. §

2253; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 474 (2000). Here, the Court finds that reason2 11cv1488

Case 3:11-cv-01488-AJB-KSC Document 67 Filed 06/23/14 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

able jurists could not debate whether Respondent’s motion to dismiss should have been

resolved differently and therefore DENIES the certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 23, 2014

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

3 11cv1488

Case 3:11-cv-01488-AJB-KSC Document 67 Filed 06/23/14 Page 3 of 3