Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00592/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00592-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMMANUEL TYRONE BULL,

Petitioner,

v.

DR. JEFFREY BEARD, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 13-CV-00592 - AJB -WVG

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION, (Doc. No.

16); 

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS, (Doc. No.

8); AND 

(3) DENYING AND DISMISSING

PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS,

(Doc. No. 1).

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court GRANT Respondent’s Motion

to Dismiss and DISMISS with prejudice Petitioner Emmanuel Tyrone Bull’s Petition for

a Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. No. 1). Petitioner was instructed to file written objections to the R&R no later than September 19, 2013, and Respondent was instructed to

file written replies on later than October 3, 2013 (Doc. No. 15 at 17.) The parties were

further advised that failure to file written objections within the specified time may waive

the right to raise such objections on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455

(9th Cir. 1998). 

1 13cv592

Case 3:13-cv-00592-AJB-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/25/13 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

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).

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R. 

Therefore, having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Gallo’s analysis

is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby:

(1) ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety; (2) GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss;

and (3) DENIES and DISMISSES Bull’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with

prejudice. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 25, 2013

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

2 13cv592

Case 3:13-cv-00592-AJB-WVG Document 17 Filed 10/25/13 Page 2 of 2