Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02129/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02129-1/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

16-cv-2129-WQH-BGS

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

MAURICE CARTER,

Petitioner,

v.

CYNTHIA Y. TAMPKINS ,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16-cv-2129-WQH-BGS

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation issued 

by United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 9) recommending that the Petitioner’s Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1) be denied.

On October 17, 2018, the Court ordered Petitioner to file any objections to the Report 

and Recommendation by November 7, 2018. (ECF No. 9). No objections have been filed. 

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 

report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 

district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 

which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 

2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 

Case 3:16-cv-02129-WQH-BGS Document 10 Filed 12/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16-cv-2129-WQH-BGS

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

(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 

review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 

correct.”).

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the 

submissions of the parties. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly 

recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the Petitioner be denied. 

A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue an 

appeal from a final order in a section 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(1)(A); Fed R. App. P. 22(b). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability 

when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” 

A certificate of appealability should be issued only where the petition presents “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). It must 

appear that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the petitioner’s 

constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

The Court finds that for the reasons cited in the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner

has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Court 

will not grant a certificate of appealability. 

Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) is 

adopted in its entirety and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. 

A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for 

Respondent and against Petitioner and close the case. 

Dated: December 18, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-02129-WQH-BGS Document 10 Filed 12/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2