Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02604/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02604-2/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

18-cv-02604-WQH-MDD

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

BENNETTE L. DOUGLAS,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM JOE SULLIVAN,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18-cv-02604-WQH-MDD

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation issued 

by the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 13) recommending that the Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) be granted and that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(ECF No. 1) be dismissed with prejudice. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) set forth the duties of 

the district court in connection with a report and recommendation by a magistrate judge. 

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 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district 

court need not review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to which 

neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the 

Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 

findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”).

Case 3:18-cv-02604-WQH-MDD Document 14 Filed 06/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-02604-WQH-MDD

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

No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has 

reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 

For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court concludes that habeas 

relief is not warranted on grounds one through four of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

A petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability in order to pursue an appeal 

from a final order in a § 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. 

R. App. P. 22(b). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 

“[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final 

order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability should issue only if the 

petition presents “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). The petitioner must show that jurists of reason would debate whether the 

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and whether the district 

court was correct in its procedural ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

“[T]he district court shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the standard for 

issuing a certificate, or state its reasons why a certificate should not be granted.” United 

States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). Upon review of the record in this 

case, the Court concludes that reasonable jurists would not find Petitioner’s claim 

debatable. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) is 

adopted in its entirety. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) is

granted and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with 

prejudice. The Clerk is ordered to enter judgment in favor of Respondent and against 

Petitioner and to close the case. The Court grants no certificate of appealability. 

Dated: June 3, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02604-WQH-MDD Document 14 Filed 06/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2