Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01833/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01833-2/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

LANCE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 18cv1833-WQH-MSB

v. ORDER

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

 

 Respondents. 

 

 

 

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

issued by United States Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg (ECF No. 12) recommending

that the Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 11) be denied. 

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). The district judge 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.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a

Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416

F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act]

- 1 - 18cv1833-WQH-MSB

Case 3:18-cv-01833-WQH-MSB Document 16 Filed 01/28/19 PageID.<pageID> 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

requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the

parties themselves accept as correct.”).

No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court

has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the

parties. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 12)

is adopted in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for

Default Judgment (ECF No. 11) is denied. 

DATED: January 28, 2019

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 18cv1833-WQH-MSB

Case 3:18-cv-01833-WQH-MSB Document 16 Filed 01/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2