Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00537/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00537-2/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 - 07cv537WQH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE JOSEPH SILVA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07cv537-WQH (JMA)

ORDER

vs.

J. YATES, Warden, et al.,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

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

9) filed on March 28, 2008. 

On March 22, 2007, Petitioner Leslie Joseph Silva, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 6, 2007, Respondent filed an Answer.

On March 28, 2008, Magistrate Judge Adler issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Petition be denied with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge ordered that

any may party file written objections to the Report and Recommendation no later than April

30, 2008. No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court in connection with the 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). The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

Case 3:07-cv-00537-WQH-JMA Document 10 Filed 06/05/08 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 - 07cv537WQH

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Where 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). 

CONCLUSION

This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court

concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the Petitioner has not shown that

he is entitled to federal habeas relief under the applicable legal standards. The Report and

Recommendation filed on March 28, 2008 (Doc. # 9) is adopted by this Court in its entirety.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in

favor of Respondent and against Petitioner. 

DATED: June 5, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00537-WQH-JMA Document 10 Filed 06/05/08 Page 2 of 2