Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02234/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02234-1/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 - 10cv2234

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS GENE MAYFIELD, JR.,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 10cv2234-LAB (WVG)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

vs.

L S McEWEN, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, a prisoner in state custody, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking relief from denial of parole. This matter was referred

to Magistrate Judge William Gallo for report and recommendation. On June 23, 2011, Judge

Gallo issued his report and recommendation (the “R&R”), recommending that the petition

be denied. Objections were due July 22, 2011, but Petitioner filed none and did not seek

additional time within which to do so.

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "A judge of the court 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). The Court reviews de novo those portions of the

R&R to which specific written objection is made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). "The statute makes it clear that the district judge must

review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made,

Case 3:10-cv-02234-LAB-WVG Document 13 Filed 09/16/11 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 - 10cv2234

but not otherwise." Id. When no objections are filed, the Court need not review the report

and recommendation de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005).

See also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003)

(applying Reyna-Tapia to habeas review).

The Court has reviewed the R&R, finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. In particular,

the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859 (2011) makes

clear the petition cannot succeed. The petition is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 15, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02234-LAB-WVG Document 13 Filed 09/16/11 Page 2 of 2