Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01843/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01843-1/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

-1- 08cv1843w

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYRON THOMAS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08-CV-1843 W (JMA)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

[DOC. 20], (2) DENYING

PETITION [DOC. 1], AND

(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary, et al.,

Respondents.

Myron Thomas (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). On March 1, 2010,

Respondents filed an answer to the Petition. 

On December 7, 2010, United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler issued a

Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that this Court deny the

Petition, and dismiss the case with prejudice. The Report also ordered that any

objections were to be filed by January 6, 2011, and any reply filed by January 26, 2011.

To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time

in which to file an objection. 

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are

filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and

Case 3:08-cv-01843-W-JMA Document 21 Filed 01/26/11 Page 1 of 3
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- 08cv1843w

recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003)(holding that 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c) “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”)(emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1226 (D. Arizona 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District

Court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s Report). This rule of law is

well established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416

F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005)(“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only

required when an objection is made to the R & R.”)(emphasis added)(citing RenyaTapia, 328 F.3d 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005)

(Lorenz, J.) (adopted Report without review because neither party filed objections to the

Report despite the opportunity to do so, “accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report

and Recommendation in its entirety.”); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155,

1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

Accordingly, because no objection has been filed, the Court accepts Judge Adler’s

recommendation, and ADOPTS the Report in its entirety. For the reasons stated in

the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court DENIES the Petition

and ORDERS this case DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Moreover, because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s assessment of the

claims debatable or wrong, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. See Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 26, 2011

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01843-W-JMA Document 21 Filed 01/26/11 Page 2 of 3
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

-3- 08cv1843w

Case 3:08-cv-01843-W-JMA Document 21 Filed 01/26/11 Page 3 of 3