Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02541/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02541-2/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

- 1 - 09cv2541

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIE LYNN SPENCER,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09cv2541 BEN (CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

vs. AND RECOMMENDATION

MARY LATTIMORE, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner Julie Lynn Spencer filed a Second Amended Petition for writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No. 7.) Respondents moved to dismiss the Petition as

time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (Dkt. No. 13.)

Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and

Recommendation recommending Respondents’ motion be denied and that Respondents be

ordered to file an Answer to the Petition and lodge all documents relating to the case. (Dkt.

No. 14.) Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due September 12, 2011.

(Id.) Respondents did not file any objections. Having reviewed the matter de novo and for the

reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-02541-GPC-KSC Document 15 Filed 09/20/11 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 - 09cv2541

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C.

§636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However,

“[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) (emphasis in original), cert

denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir.

2005). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo,

findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d at 1121. 

In the absence of any objections, the Court fully ADOPTS Judge Bencivengo’s Report

and Recommendation. Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Respondents shall file

an Answer to the Petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 19, 2011

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02541-GPC-KSC Document 15 Filed 09/20/11 Page 2 of 2