Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02041/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02041-1/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 – 16cv2041

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNELL D. FULCHER,

Petitioner,

Case No. 16-cv-02041-BAS-BGS

ORDER:

(1)APPROVING AND 

ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS 

ENTIRETY (ECF No. 11);

(2)GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL (ECF No. 10); 

AND

(3)TERMINATING AS MOOT 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS (ECF No. 7)

v.

S. HATTON, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, submitted 

a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.)

Respondent moves to dismiss the Petition. (ECF No. 7.) Respondent argues the 

Petition should be dismissed because Petitioner previously challenged the same 

conviction in Fulcher v. R.H. Trimble, Case No. 11-cv-0959-CAB-WMC (S.D. Cal. 

filed May 2, 2011). (Id.) In addition, Petitioner moves for voluntary dismissal of his 

Case 3:16-cv-02041-BAS-BGS Document 12 Filed 02/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 16cv2041

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

Petition. (ECF No. 10.) In his motion, Petitioner concedes that he lacks leave from 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file this second and successive petition. (Id.)

Thus, Petitioner requests that the Court dismiss his Petition without prejudice. (Id.) 

On January 31, 2017, U.S. Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued a 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court grant 

Petitioner’s motion for voluntary dismissal. (ECF No. 11.) The magistrate judge 

reasoned that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(2). (Id.) No objections have been filed to the R&R. 

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are 

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or 

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But 

“[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 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding 

that where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the 

magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district 

judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves 

accept as correct.” Id. “When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived.” 

Marshall v. Astrue, No. 08cv1735, 2010 WL 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) 

(Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed 

objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so).

In this case, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested 

additional time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis 

alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Having nonetheless conducted a de novo

of the R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Skomal’s reasoning is sound.

Accordingly, the Court hereby APPROVES and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety 

(ECF No. 11), GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for voluntary dismissal (ECF No. 10),

Case 3:16-cv-02041-BAS-BGS Document 12 Filed 02/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 16cv2041

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

and TERMINATES AS MOOT Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7). 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action. The 

Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 17, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02041-BAS-BGS Document 12 Filed 02/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3