Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00169/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00169-1/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

 The court sua sponte substitutes the current Secretary of the California Department of

Corrections, James E. Tilton, in place of Richard Rimmer and Jeanne S. Woodford, as the

Respondent.

04CV0169

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO RAMOS AQUINO, Civil No. 04cv0169-L(CAB)

 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254

v.

JAMES E. TILTON,1

 Secretary, 

 Respondent.

Petitioner Francisco Ramos Aquino, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3. On January 22, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a

Report and Recommendation, recommending the petition be denied. 

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision” on a

dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties

for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “The court shall make a de

novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is

Case 3:04-cv-00169-L-CAB Document 46 Filed 03/12/07 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 04CV0169

made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Section 636(b)(1) does not require some lesser review by the

district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The

“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) (emphasis in the original); see

Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003) (applying

Reyna-Tapia to habeas review). In the absence of any objections, the court ADOPTS the Report

and Recommendation. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 12, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. BARBARA L. MAJOR

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:04-cv-00169-L-CAB Document 46 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 2