Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01624/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01624-1/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 – 14-cv-1624 BAS (KSC)

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

JAMES EDWARD SPENCE,

Petitioner,

Case No. 14-cv-1624 BAS (KSC)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS 

ENTIRETY; AND

(2) DENYING PETITION

[ECFs 14, 1]

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary, et al.,

Respondent.

On July 8, 2014, Petitioner James Edward Spence, a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 

2254. ECF 1. This first Petition failed to properly name a respondent, so the Court 

dismissed it without prejudice. ECF 2. On August 1, 2014, Petition filed an 

amended Petition seeking relief from constitutional violations stemming from his 

state court trial. ECF 4.

Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford’s briefing schedule required the 

Response to be due on October 13, 2014 and any Traverse to be submitted by 

November 12, 2014. ECF 5. Respondents filed a Response and Lodgments. ECFs 

Case 3:14-cv-01624-BAS-KSC Document 15 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 14-cv-1624 BAS (KSC)

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

11, 12-1–12-20. Petitioner did not file a Traverse. On March 9, 2015, Judge 

Crawford issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that 

this Court deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Judge Crawford ordered 

any objections to be filed by April 6, 2015, and any replies by April 20, 2015. 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) (emphasis in original); 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. 08cv1735, 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 on April 6, 2015.

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 FAP, the Response, and the Report, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS 

the Report in its entirety (ECF 14), and DENIES the Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus (ECF 4). Moreover, because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 

Case 3:14-cv-01624-BAS-KSC Document 15 Filed 04/29/15 Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 14-cv-1624 BAS (KSC)

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

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: April 29, 2015

Case 3:14-cv-01624-BAS-KSC Document 15 Filed 04/29/15 Page 3 of 3