Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02319/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02319-0/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 - 05cv2319-BEN (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN M. McHUGH,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05CV2319-BEN (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

DENYING PETITION FOR A

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

vs.

WILLIAM B. KOLENDER, Sheriff San

Diego County ,

Respondent.

Petitioner Stephen M. McHugh (“Petitioner”) has filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”), challenging his state conviction for driving under the

influence of alcohol or drugs with priors. He claims the compelled extractions of his blood

constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. 

After the matter was fully briefed, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler issued a

Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the Petition be denied. Specifically,

Judge Adler concluded that “[b]ecause [Petitioner] was afforded a full and fair hearing of his

Fourth Amendment claims in state court, habeas relief in federal court is unavailable to him.”

Petitioner had until November 1, 2006 to file objections to the Report. To date, Petitioner has not

filed any objections. Nor has he requested additional time to do so. 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) provides: “A judge of the [district] court shall make a de

novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed

Case 3:05-cv-02319-BEN-JMA Document 10 Filed 12/11/06 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 - 05cv2319-BEN (JMA)

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Thus, the governing “statute makes it

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) (emphasis in original); see also id. (“Neither the Constitution nor the

statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties

themselves accept as correct.”) (citation omitted)); Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13

(9th Cir. 2005) ( “Of course, de novo review of a [Report] is only required when an objection is

made to the [Report].” ) (citation omitted)). Notwithstanding Petitioner’s failure to object, the

Court has carefully reviewed the Report. Judge Adler’s analysis is well reasoned. See Stone v.

Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976) (“[W]here the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair

litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus

relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced

at his trial.”). Accordingly, the Report is ADOPTED IN FULL. The Petition is DENIED. The

Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 11, 2006

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02319-BEN-JMA Document 10 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 2