Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00683/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00683-2/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

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

GUSTAVO TORRES DELA RIVA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv0683 WQH (JMA)

ORDER

v.

KIM HOLLAND, Warden,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 12) filed by Defendant and the review of the Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 16) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler.

I. Background

On October 30, 2014, Petitioner Gustavo Torres Dela Riva, a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C §

2254. (ECF No. 1). On May 5, 2015, Respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 12). The docket reflects that no

opposition was filed. On August 7, 2015, United State Magistrate Jan M. Adler issued

the Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted

and the petition be dismissed with prejudice because Petitioner’s claims are untimely

and time-barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (ECF No.

16). The docket reflects that no objections have been filed to the Report and

Recommendation.

- 1 - 15cv0683 WQH (JMA)

Case 3:15-cv-00683-WQH-JMA Document 17 Filed 09/18/15 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

II. Discussion

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b). 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.”).

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the

submissions of the parties. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly

recommended that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and that the petition be

dismissed with prejudice. The Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. 

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16)

is ADOPTED in its entirety. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

DATED: September 18, 2015

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 15cv0683 WQH (JMA)

Case 3:15-cv-00683-WQH-JMA Document 17 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 2