Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01470/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01470-1/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

JERRY WILLIAM MCCLUNEY,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 14CV1470 BEN (DHB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

AND ABEYANCE

[Docket Nos. 16, 22]

vs.

JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary

Respondent.

Petitioner Jerry William McCluney, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

commenced this action with the filing of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting a single claim. (Docket No. 1.) On September 19, 2014,

Petitioner filed a Motion for Stay and Abeyance. (Docket No. 16.) On October 3,

2014, Respondent filed an Opposition to the Motion and on October 30, 2014

Petitioner filed a Reply. (Docket Nos. 18, 20.) On January 23, 2015, Magistrate Judge

David H. Bartick issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Motion for Stay and Abeyance be denied. (Docket No. 22). 

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by February 13, 2015. (Id.) 

No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and

Recommendation is ADOPTED.

///

///

- 1 - 14cv1470

Case 3:14-cv-01470-BEN-DHB Document 24 Filed 03/17/15 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

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of

a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

However, “[t]he statute makesit clear that the district judge must review the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not

otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

banc); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither

the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings

and recommendations that the partiesthemselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d at 1121. 

In the absence of any objections, the Court fully ADOPTS Judge Bartick’s

Report and Recommendation. The Motion for Stay and Abeyance is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 16, 2015

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 2 - 14cv1470

Case 3:14-cv-01470-BEN-DHB Document 24 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 2