Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02328/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02328-1/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

- 1 - 09cv2328

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY LEON PEAVY,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09-CV-2328 JLS (POR)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

(2) DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS

(Doc. No. 7)

vs.

JOHN MARSHALL,

Respondent.

Presently before the Court is Respondent John Marshall’s motion to dismiss Petitioner Ricky

B. Paugh’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) advising this Court to deny the motion. (Doc. Nos. 7 & 15.)

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

duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. “The

district court 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)(1)(c); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614,

617 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). However, in the absence of

timely objection, the Court need “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court,

501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Case 3:09-cv-02328-JLS-DHB Document 16 Filed 08/05/10 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 - 09cv2328

In this case, Respondent has failed to timely file objections to Magistrate Judge Porter’s R&R.

Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and no contains no clear

error. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in full and DENIES the motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 5, 2010

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02328-JLS-DHB Document 16 Filed 08/05/10 Page 2 of 2