Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00401/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00401-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ALCANTARA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12-CV-401 - IEG (DHB)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING IN FULL REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc.

No. 19];

(2) GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. No.

12];

AND

(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY.

vs.

L S MCEWEN, Warden,

Respondent.

On February 1, 2012, Petitioner Jose Alcantara (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro

se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. [Doc. No. 1, Petition.] Presently before the Court is Respondent L S

McEwen’s (“Respondent”) motion to dismiss writ of habeas corpus as untimely. 

[Doc. No. 12, Mot. to Dismiss.]

The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge David Bartick, who issued

a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that Respondent’s motion

to dismiss be granted. [Doc. No. 19, R & R.] The R & R concludes that the Petition

is statutorily barred by the expiration of the limitations period, and is thus untimely. 

- 1 - 12cv401

Case 3:12-cv-00401-IEG-DHB Document 27 Filed 08/15/13 Page 1 of 4
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

[Id. at 1.] Petitioner filed a bare bones objection to the R & R on May 7, 2013. 

[Doc. No. 26, Objection to R & R.] 

DISCUSSION

“[A] party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed

findings and recommendations” of a Magistrate Judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)

(emphasis added). The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R & R to which

objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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). 

“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. In

the absence of a timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no

clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Comm. Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 501

F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Numerous courts have held that a general objection to the entirety of a

Magistrate Judge’s R & R has the same effect as a failure to object. Page v. Lee,

337 F.3d 411, 416 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003) (“[P]etitioner’s failure to object to the

magistrate judge’s recommendation with the specificity required by [Rule 72(b)] is,

standing alone, a sufficient basis upon which to affirm the judgment of the district

court as to this claim”); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505,

506, 508-09 (6th Cir. 1991) (“A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate’s

report has the same effects as would a failure to object.”); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843

F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988) (holding that general objections do not preserve

arguments for appellate review and stating that “[a] district judge should not have to

- 2 - 12cv401

Case 3:12-cv-00401-IEG-DHB Document 27 Filed 08/15/13 Page 2 of 4
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

guess what arguments an objecting party depends on when reviewing a magistrate

judge’s report”); Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984) (stating a “word-forword examination of the entire proceedings before the magistrate . . . was not

required” when appellant made only general objections); see also Morris v. Barra,

2013 WL 1190766, at *17 n.11 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2013); Johnson v. Gains, 2011

WL 765851, at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2011); DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F.

Supp. 2d 333, 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (reviewing report and recommendation for clear

error where pro se plaintiff made only general objection).

Concerns about judicial economy and efficiency guided these courts’

decisions. In Goney, for example, the Third Circuit explained that “providing a

complete de novo determination where only a general objection to the report is

offered would undermine the efficiency the magistrate system was meant to

contribute to the judicial process.” Id. In Howard, the Sixth Circuit noted that the

purpose of the Federal Magistrates Act is to “improve access to the federal courts

and aid in the efficient administration of justice.” Howard, 932 F.2d at 509 (internal

quotation marks omitted).

The Ninth Circuit has also emphasized that “the underlying purpose of the

Federal Magistrates Act is to improve the effective administration of justice. . . . A

rule requiring automatic de novo review of findings and recommendations to which

no one objects would not save time or judicial resources. It would do just the

opposite, and defeat the whole purpose of referring the plea to the magistrate

judge.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1122. 

The sum total of Petitioner’s objections to the R & R are as follows: “I,

Petitioner, Jose Alcantara, object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendations [sic]. I object to each fact and decision of law. I ask the court to

construe the traverse along with these objections to see how the Magistrate erred in

the Report and Recommendation.” [Doc. No. 26, Objection to R & R at 1.] 

The Court finds persuasive the substantial case law treating general

- 3 - 12cv401

Case 3:12-cv-00401-IEG-DHB Document 27 Filed 08/15/13 Page 3 of 4
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

objections to an R & R the same as no objections in light of the purpose of the

Federal Magistrates Act. See id. Thus, the Court reviews the face of the record for

clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Comm. Notes. Having reviewed for

clear error Respondent’s motion, Petitioner’s opposition brief, and the R & R, the

Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN FULL the R & R. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1).

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, and having reviewed the Report and

Recommendation, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL the Report and Recommendation

and GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

The Court also DENIES a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not

“made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 14, 2013 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 4 - 12cv401

Case 3:12-cv-00401-IEG-DHB Document 27 Filed 08/15/13 Page 4 of 4