Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02202/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02202-2/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 – 13-cv-2202 BAS (JMA)

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

TERRENCE QUINTEN CROSS,

Petitioner,

Case No. 13-cv-2202 BAS (JMA)

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; 

AND

(2) DENYING PETITIONER

HABEAS RELIEF

v.

A.M. GONZALEZ, Warden, et al.,

Respondent.

On September 13, 2013, Petitioner Terrence Quinten Cross, a state prisoner, 

filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas 

relief from his January 31, 2012 conviction and sentence for selling and possessing 

cocaine base. ECF 1. Respondent answered the Petition, and Petitioner filed a 

Traverse. ECFs 11, 13. On August 14, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Jan 

M. Adler issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that this 

Court deny the Petition. ECF 16. Petitioner objected to the Report. ECF 17.

For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety 

(ECF 16), OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections (ECF 17), and DENIES the 

Case 3:13-cv-02202-BAS-JMA Document 18 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 13-cv-2202 BAS (JMA)

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

petition with prejudice (ECF 1).

I. LEGAL STANDARD

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

recommendation and a party’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in 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).

In contrast, the duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation are quite different when an objection has been 

filed. These duties are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Specifically, 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. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 

F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 

II. ANALYSIS1

Petitioner objects to the Report, asserting that Federal Rule of Evidence 403 

allows this Court to review the trial court’s determination for abuse of discretion. 

ECF 17. To support this proposition, Petitioner cites Old Chief v. United States, 

519 U.S. 172 (1997). In that case, the Supreme Court found that the trial court 

abused its discretion when it refused to accept the defendant’s stipulation that he 

had a prior felony, even though the Government refused to join the stipulation. 

 

1 The Court incorporates the recitation of the facts found by the prior courts, as outlined in Judge Adler’s Report.

Case 3:13-cv-02202-BAS-JMA Document 18 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 13-cv-2202 BAS (JMA)

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

Instead, the Government introduced the judgment from the prior conviction.

In Old Chief, the Supreme Court directly reviewed a case arriving from a 

federal criminal trial, governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. In such direct 

actions, the abuse of discretion standard is appropriate. In contrast, Petitioner’s 

arrives in federal court seeking habeas relief. Federal habeas relief requires a 

federal constitutional violation. See Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 919 

(9th Cir. 1991). Old Chief does not address a constitutional violation, nor does it 

impute federal evidentiary standards onto the states. It is therefore irrelevant to the 

disposition of this Petition.

III. CONCLUSION

Because failure to consider Old Chief or to apply its standard to the present 

case was the sole basis for the Objection, and Old Chief is irrelevant, Judge Adler 

rightly did not apply Old Chief. Additionally, after reviewing the entirety of the 

Report de novo, the Court has determined Judge Adler’s reasoning to be sound. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (ECF 

16), OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, and DENIES this habeas petition with 

prejudice in its entirety (ECF 1).

Moreover, because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s assessment 

of the claims debatable or wrong, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.

See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2015

Case 3:13-cv-02202-BAS-JMA Document 18 Filed 01/27/15 Page 3 of 3