Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01451/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01451-1/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 – 15cv1451

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

CHARLES EDWARD SHIPMAN,

Petitioner,

Case No. 15-cv-01451-BAS(BGS)

ORDER:

(1)APPROVING AND 

ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS 

ENTIRETY; AND

(2)DIRECTING JUDGMENT BE 

ENTERED DENYING 

PETITIONER’S HABEAS 

PETITION

[ECF No. 12]

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, Secretary,

Respondent.

On July 1, 2015, Petitioner Charles Edward Shipman, a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state-court convictions. (ECF No. 1.) 

Thereafter, Respondent answered the petition. (ECF No. 10.) On February 29, 2016, 

United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court deny Petitioner’s habeas 

petition and enter judgment accordingly. (ECF No. 12.) Judge Skomal ordered that 

any objections be filed no later than March 18, 2016, and any replies no later than 

Case 3:15-cv-01451-BAS-BGS Document 13 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 15cv1451

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

April 8, 2016. (Id. at 27:4–8.) To date, no objections have been filed, and neither 

party has requested 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. Reyna-Tapia, 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. 08cv1735, 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 March 18, 2016. However, 

no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time to do 

so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Having nonetheless conducted a de novo review of the 

habeas petition, Respondent’s answer, and the R&R, the Court concludes that Judge 

Skomal’s reasoning is sound. Accordingly, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS

the R&R in its entirety (ECF No. 12), DENIES Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus

(ECF No. 1), and ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Additionally, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant 

makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(2). Petitioner has made no such showing. Because reasonable jurists would 

Case 3:15-cv-01451-BAS-BGS Document 13 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 15cv1451

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

not find the Court’s assessment of the claims debatable or wrong, the Court 

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 9, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-01451-BAS-BGS Document 13 Filed 05/09/16 Page 3 of 3