Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01782/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01782-1/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 - 08cv1782w

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERIECE JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08-CV-1782 W (BLM)

ORDER:

 (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION 

(DOC. NO. 17.)

(2) GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS (DOC. NO. 11.)

(3) DENYING PETITION 

(DOC. NO. 1)

 v.

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

On September 29, 2008, Petitioner Periece Johnson (“Petitioner”), state prisoner

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

§ 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner challenges his 2005 convictions for selling cocaine base

and possessing cocaine base for sale. (Id.) 

On March 13, 2009, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the Petition. (Doc. No.

11.) On April 21, 2009, Petitioner filed an opposition. (Doc. No. 16.) 

On April 28, 2009, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued a Report and

Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Court grant the motion to dismiss

and deny the Petition with prejudice. The Report also ordered that any objections were

to be filed by May 20, 2009, and any reply filed by June 10, 2009. To date, no objection

has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to file an

objection. 

Case 3:08-cv-01782-W-BLM Document 18 Filed 08/31/09 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 - 08cv1782w

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the district court

is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See United

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(holding that 28 U.S.C.

636(b)(1)(c) “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”)(emphasis in

original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Arizona 2003) (concluding

that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to review the

magistrate judge’s Report). This rule of law is well established within the Ninth Circuit and

this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005)(“Of course,

de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R &

R.”)(emphasis added)(citing Renya-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F.

Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopted Report without review because

neither party filed objections to the Report despite the opportunity to do so, “accordingly,

the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols

v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

The Court, therefore, accepts Judge Major’s recommendation, and ADOPTS the

Report (Doc. No. 17) in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is

incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss

(Doc. No. 11), and DISMISSES the Petition (Doc. No. 1) WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 31, 2009

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01782-W-BLM Document 18 Filed 08/31/09 Page 2 of 2