Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00727/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00727-1/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 – 16cv0727

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

EDDIE LEE BELL,

Petitioner,

Case No. 16-cv-00727-BAS-PCL

ORDER:

(1)APPROVING AND 

ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS 

ENTIRETY (ECF No. 26); AND

(2)DIRECTING JUDGMENT BE 

ENTERED DENYING 

PETITIONER’S HABEAS 

PETITION

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner Eddie Lee Bell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner was convicted in 1997 for making a terrorist threat. Because of his prior 

felony convictions, Petitioner’s sentence was enhanced under California’s Three 

Strikes sentencing law to 29 years to life. He is now challenging the denial of his 

California Proposition 36 petition to recall his sentence.1

 

1 California Proposition 36 “diluted the three strikes law by reserving the life sentence for 

cases where the current crime is a serious or violent felony . . . [and] created a postconviction

release proceeding whereby a prisoner who is serving an indeterminate life sentence imposed 

pursuant to the three strikes law for a crime that is not a serious or violent felony and who is not 

disqualified, may have his or her sentence recalled and be sentenced as a second strike offender 

unless the court determines that resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public 

safety.” People v. Yearwood, 213 Cal. App. 4th 161, 167–68 (2013).

Case 3:16-cv-00727-BAS-PCL Document 27 Filed 03/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 16cv0727

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

On January 13, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis issued a 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court deny 

Petitioner’s habeas petition and enter judgment accordingly. (ECF No. 26.) Judge 

Lewis ordered that any objections to the R&R be filed no later than February 10, 

2017, and that any replies to the objections be filed no later than February 24, 2017. 

(Id. 14:5–9.) To date, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested 

additional time to do so.

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are 

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or 

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But 

“[t]he 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); see 

also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding 

that where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the 

magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district 

judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves 

accept as correct.” Id. “When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived.” 

Marshall v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-1735, 2010 WL 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 

2010) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither 

party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so).

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was February 10, 2017. 

However, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional 

time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Having nonetheless conducted a de novo review of 

the habeas petition, Respondent’s response, the lodgement, and the R&R, the Court 

concludes that Judge Lewis’s reasoning is sound.

//

Case 3:16-cv-00727-BAS-PCL Document 27 Filed 03/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 16cv0727

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

Hence, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (ECF 

No. 26), DENIES Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1), and 

ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1).

In addition, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant makes 

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

Petitioner has made no such showing. Because reasonable jurists would not find the 

Court’s assessment of the claims debatable or wrong, the Court DECLINES to issue 

a certificate of appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 29, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00727-BAS-PCL Document 27 Filed 03/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3