Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02109/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02109-4/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 - 10cv2109

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS ANDREWS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 10cv2109 BEN (BLM)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DISMISSING PETITION

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner Marcus Andrews filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. Respondent moved to dismiss the Petition as time-barred by the applicable statute of

limitations and for failure to exhaust his state remedies. Dkt. No. 9. After three extensions of

time to respond, Petitioner filed an Opposition. Dkt. No. 26.

Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and

Recommendation recommending Respondent’s motion be granted and the Petition be

dismissed as untimely. Dkt. No. 27. Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were

due August 24, 2011. Id. Petitioner did not file any objections. Having reviewed the matter

de novo and for the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and

the Petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.

///

///

Case 3:10-cv-02109-BEN-BLM Document 28 Filed 09/02/11 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 - 10cv2109

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) (emphasis in original), cert

denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003); 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. Accordingly, the Court may grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss on this

basis alone.

The Court has, however, reviewed the matter de novo and agrees that the motion to

dismiss should be granted because the Petition is time-barred by the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act’s one-year statute of limitations. The statute of limitations expired

on January 14, 2010. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Petitioner was

entitled to statutory tolling, but that tolling only extended the deadline until March 17, 2010

and Petitioner did not file his Petition until September 20, 2010. Furthermore, the Court agrees

that Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling.

In the absence of any objections and after a de novo review, the Court fully ADOPTS

Judge Major’s Report and Recommendation. The Petition is DISMISSED with prejudice as

time barred. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 2, 2011

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02109-BEN-BLM Document 28 Filed 09/02/11 Page 2 of 2