Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02390/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02390-1/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

06cv2390

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAQUAN A. HAYES,

Petitioner,

v.

GEORGE J. GIURBINO,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv2390-L(POR)

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH

PREJUDICE and DIRECTING

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Laquan A. Hayes, a pro se state prisoner, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2254. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter for Report and

Recommendation (“Report”). The parties were given time in which to file objections to the

Report. Neither party has filed objections nor sought an extension of time in which to file

objections. Having reviewed the petition and the parties’ submissions, the Court enters the

following decision.

The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation 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 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) (1); United

States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir.1989); see also Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F.

Case 3:06-cv-02390-L-POR Document 9 Filed 01/14/08 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 06cv2390

Supp.2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006). But when neither party objects to a Report and

Recommendation, a district court need not review de novo the Report and Recommendation. 

See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005).

After reviewing the Report in its entirety, the Court finds that the magistrate judge

correctly concluded that petitioner’s lengthy indeterminate sentence under California Penal Code

§ 667 did not violate clearly established federal law and that the state court did not violate

petitioner’s Eighth Amendment rights by not treating his conviction offense as a misdemeanor

rather than as a felony. (Report at 5-7).

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation [doc. #8] in its entirety. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

DENIED with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance

with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 14, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LOUISA S. PORTER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-02390-L-POR Document 9 Filed 01/14/08 Page 2 of 2