Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02038/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02038-3/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

14CV2038 BEN (JMA)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL WILLIAM MAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD, Warden, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 14CV2038 BEN (JMA)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; 

(2) DISMISSING KAMALA HARRIS 

AS RESPONDENT; 

(3) DENYING REQUEST FOR AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING; and 

(4) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Daniel William May, 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). Following briefing, including a traverse filed by Petitioner, on 

September 25, 2015, Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler issued a thoughtful and thorough 

Report and Recommendation recommending that the Petition be denied. (Docket No. 

20). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by October 14, 2015. (Id.) 

Case 3:14-cv-02038-BEN-JMA Document 21 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 2
2

14CV2038 BEN (JMA)

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

No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and 

Recommendation is ADOPTED.

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 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); 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 parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

The Court need not conduct a de novo review given the absence of objections. 

However, the Court has conducted a de novo review and fully ADOPTS the Report and 

Recommendation. The Petition is DENIED and the request for an evidentiary hearing is 

DENIED. Additionally, as the parties agree, Kamala Harris is DISMISSED. 

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 DENYING the Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2015

Case 3:14-cv-02038-BEN-JMA Document 21 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 2