Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02376/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02376-1/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

- 1 - 10cv2376 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM LIMBRICK,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 10-CV-2376 JLS (MDD)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS; AND

(3) DISMISSING UNEXHAUSTED

CLAIM 

(ECF Nos. 9, 14)

vs.

DOMINGO URIBE, JR.; EDMUND G.

BROWN, JR., 

Respondents.

Presently before the Court is Respondent Domingo Uribe, Jr.’s motion to dismiss Petitioner

Adam Limbrick’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 9.) Also before the Court is

Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin’s report and recommendation advising the Court to deny

Respondent’s motion. (R&R, ECF No. 14.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court’s

duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court must

“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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980);

United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely

objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in

Case 3:10-cv-02376-JLS-MDD Document 15 Filed 07/29/11 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 - 10cv2376 

order to accept the report and recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing

Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”)

Here, Respondent failed to timely object to Magistrate Judge Dembin’s report and

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b) (“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the

recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed

findings and recommendations.”); R&R (filed June 29, 2011). Having reviewed the report and

recommendation, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error.

Accordingly, the Court (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dembin’s report and recommendation and

(2) DENIES Respondent’s motion.

In addition, Magistrate Judge Dembin gave Petitioner until July 8, 2011 to object to the

dismissal with prejudice of the unexhausted claim contained in his petition. (R&R 5; see id. at 3

(“Petitioner concedes in his Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss that his Petition contains

an unexhausted claim.”).) To date, he has not taken any action on the unexhausted claim.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s unexhausted claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 29, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02376-JLS-MDD Document 15 Filed 07/29/11 Page 2 of 2