Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01109/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01109-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY L. TAYLOR,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11cv1109 WQH (RBB)

ORDER

vs.

TERRI GONZALEZ, Warden;

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondents.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) of the

Honorable Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks recommending that the Court deny Petitioner’s

Motion for Stay and Abeyance. (ECF No. 7). 

BACKGROUND

On May 19, 2011, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting claims that his due process rights were violated by his sentence and

that he received ineffective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel (ECF No. 1). On

October 31, 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion for Stay and Abeyance seeking a stay while he

filed and exhausted a claim of ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel in state court. 

(ECF No. 7).

- 1 - 11cv1109 WQH (RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-01109-WQH-RBB Document 16 Filed 08/23/12 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

On June 28, 2012, the Honorable Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending that the Court deny Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and

Abeyance on the grounds that: 1) the Petition is not a mixed petition containing some

exhausted and some unexhausted claims and 2) the statute of limitation has run on Petitioner’s

unexhausted claim. (ECF No. 15). 

The Magistrate Judge stated: 

This Report and Recommendation will be submitted to United States

District Court Judge William Q. Hayes, pursuant to the provisions of

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file written objections with the

court and serve a copy on all parties on or before July 20, 2012. The

document should be captioned, “Objections to Report and

Recommendation” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed

on or before August 3, 2012. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

district court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.

1991).

Id. at 23-24. 

To date, neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

DISCUSSION

The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of a

Magistrate Judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). When a party objects to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the [district]

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and

Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections

are filed, the district court need not review the Report and Recommendation de novo. See

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in this

case. This Court has reviewed the record and the Report and Recommendation in their

entirety. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly recommended that the Motion

for Stay and Abeyance be DENIED.

- 2 - 11cv1109 WQH (RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-01109-WQH-RBB Document 16 Filed 08/23/12 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

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) is

adopted in its entirety. Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance (ECF No. 7) is DENIED. 

DATED: August 23, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv1109 WQH (RBB)

Case 3:11-cv-01109-WQH-RBB Document 16 Filed 08/23/12 Page 3 of 3