Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02882/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02882-5/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 FIGUEROA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12CV2882 BEN (BLM)

ORDER: 

• ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

• DISMISSING PETITION

• DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

MELISSA LEA, Warden, et al.

Respondents.

Petitioner Jose Figueroa, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this

action with the filing of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. (Docket No. 1). He subsequently filed a first amended petition 

(“the Petition”). (Docket No. 9). Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the Petition

as untimely. (Docket No. 27). On November 25, 2014, Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn

Major issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation recommending

that the Petition be dismissed as untimely. (Docket No. 32). Objections to the Report

and Recommendation were initially due by December 24, 2014. (Id.) However, the

Court granted Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file objections to January

24, 2015. (Docket No. 34). No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow,

the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

///

///

- 1 - 12cv2882

Case 3:12-cv-02882-BEN-BLM Document 35 Filed 02/25/15 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

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of

a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

However, “[t]he statute makesit 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); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither

the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings

and recommendations that the partiesthemselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d at 1121. 

After a de novo review, and in the absence of any objections, the Court fully

ADOPTS Judge Major’s Report and Recommendation. The Petition is DISMISSED

as untimely. 

The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability because the issues are not

debatable among jurists of reason and there are no questions adequate to deserve

encouragement. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). The Clerk of

Court shall enter judgment DISMISSING the Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2015

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv2882

Case 3:12-cv-02882-BEN-BLM Document 35 Filed 02/25/15 Page 2 of 2