Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01348/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01348-1/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

06cv1348

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOYD ANTHONY RODGERS,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06-CV-1348-L(POR)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING

MOTION TO DISMISS THE

HABEAS PETITION WITH

PREJUDICE [doc. #10]; and

DIRECTING ENTRY OF

JUDGMENT

Petitioner Floyd Anthony Rodgers (“petitioner”) filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition based upon

the running of the statute of limitations. Although petitioner requested and was granted

additional time in which to file an objection to the motion to dismiss, petitioner did not file a

responsive memorandum prior to the filing of the Report. 

The Honorable Louisa S. Porter issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report")

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending the Petition be denied as untimely. Petitioner

did not file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. For the reasons which follow, the

Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the Petition is DENIED with prejudice.

The district court’s role in reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district court “shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept,

Case 3:06-cv-01348-L-POR Document 18 Filed 03/08/07 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 06cv1348

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge.” Id. Under this statute, “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.) (en banc), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 238 (2003); see Schmidt

v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003) (applying Reyna-Tapia’s

holding to a habeas corpus proceeding).

The Court has independently reviewed the Report and all relevant papers submitted by

both parties and finds that the Report presents a well-reasoned analysis of the statute of

limitations under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) of 1996 and

statutory tolling. Accordingly, having carefully considered the record, applicable law, and good

cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation filed January 30,

2007, in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the

petition with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter

judgment in accordance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 8, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LOUISA S. PORTER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-01348-L-POR Document 18 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2