Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02153/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02153-0/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 - 07cv2153

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM MICHAEL DENNISON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07cv2153-LAB (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION

[Dkt Nos. 9, 10]

vs.

BEN CURRY, et al.,

Respondents.

State prisoner William Michael Dennison ("Dennison" or "Petitioner"), proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis, filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for federal habeas relief on

grounds of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficient evidence to support his

November 2001 conviction for second degree murder, and prosecutorial misconduct.

Respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss on grounds the Petition is time-barred pursuant to the

one-year statute of limitations applicable to his case through the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("ADEPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Dkt No. 9. Dennison filed no

Opposition to the Motion. After tracing the procedural history of Petitioner's post-conviction

proceedings applying proper legal standards, Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler's Report and

Recommendation ("R&R") concludes this matter should be dismissed with prejudice as timebarred, with judgment entered accordingly. Dkt No. 10.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive

further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions" on a

Case 3:07-cv-02153-LAB-JMA Document 11 Filed 06/10/08 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 - 07cv2153

dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the

parties for all purposes. Rule 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). An objecting party may

"serve and file specific objections to the proposed findings and recommendations," and "a

party may respond to another party's objections." Rule 72(b). In reviewing an R&R, "the

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1);

United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (when objections are made, the court

must make a de novo determination of the factual findings to which there are objections).

"If neither party contests the magistrate's proposed findings of fact, the court may assume

their correctness and decide the motion on the applicable law." Orand v. United States, 602

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979); see Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir. 1995); 

Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007) ("determinations of law by the

magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the court of appeals]").

The deadline to file Objections to the R&R in this case passed on June 6, 2008, with

none filed. In these circumstances, the court adopts and incorporates by reference the

R&R's factual and procedural background statements and need only address the disposition

of the Petition based on the magistrate judge's conclusions of law. The court has reviewed

them de novo and finds the R&R applies the correct legal standards and reaches the correct

result, as a matter of law.

For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the R&R is adopted, the

Motion To Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE,

terminating this action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 6-10-08 ___________________________________

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-02153-LAB-JMA Document 11 Filed 06/10/08 Page 2 of 2