Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01180/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01180-4/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

06cv1180

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIX McELROY,

Petitioner,

v.

ROY C. CASTRO, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv1180-L(AJB)

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

DISMISSING THE SECOND

AMENDED PETITION WITH

PREJUDICE; and DIRECTING

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Petitioner Felix McElroy filed the above-captioned habeas corpus action on June 2, 2006,

and a first amended petition on May 8, 2007 to which respondents filed a motion to dismiss [doc.

#23]. While the motion to dismiss was pending, petitioner sought leave to file a second

amended petition [doc. #30] and a motion to stay [doc. #32]. 

Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered a Report and Recommendation (“Report”)

on December 11, 2007, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending petitioner’s motion for

leave to file a second amended petition be granted and respondents’ motion to dismiss the first

amended petition be denied as moot. This Court adopted the Report, petitioner filed a second

amended petition and respondents filed a return. 

The magistrate judge entered a new Report recommending that the petition be denied with

prejudice. Neither party filed objections to the Report within the time provided in the Report. 

The district court’s role in reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is

Case 3:06-cv-01180-L-AJB Document 48 Filed 05/07/08 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 06cv1180

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district court “shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge.” Id. Under this statute, “the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 238 (2003); see Schmidt

v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003) (applying Reyna-Tapia’s

holding to a habeas corpus proceeding).

Because the parties have not filed objections to the Report, and the magistrate judge has

carefully and fully considered the arguments of the parties, the Court will adopt the Report.

Based on the foregoing, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety;

and the petition is DENIED with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment

in accordance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 7, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-01180-L-AJB Document 48 Filed 05/07/08 Page 2 of 2