Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00088/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00088-1/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

- 1 - 08cv88 WQH (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD EDWARD MONTIJO, SR.,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08cv88 WQH (NLS)

ORDER

vs.

THOMAS HOFFMAN, Director,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #

8) filed on July 22, 2008 by United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes.

Background

On December 27, 2007, Petitioner Ronald Edward Montijo, Sr. filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Central District of California. 

(Doc. #1). On January 15, 2008 the case was transferred from the Central District of

California to the Southern District of California. (Id.). On March 17, 2008, Respondent

filed an Answer to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. #7). On July 22, 2008

United States Magistrate Judge Stormes issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that this Court deny the Petition. (Doc. #8). The parties were ordered to

file any objections to the Report and Recommendation on or before August 22, 2008. 

Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

Case 3:08-cv-00088-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 09/17/08 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 - 08cv88 WQH (NLS)

Standard of Review

The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of

a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, “[a]

judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

[Report and Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district

court need not review the Report and Recommendation de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416

F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Ruling of the Court

Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has

reviewed all aspects of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on

July 22, 2008, and adopts all portions of the Report and Recommendation. The Report and

Recommendation correctly concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support

Petitioner’s conviction, and that section 134 of the California Penal Code is not

unconstitutionally vague. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all portions of the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. # 8) are ADOPTED. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. 

DATED: September 17, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00088-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 09/17/08 Page 2 of 2