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

14CV1470 BEN (DHB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY WILLIAM MCCLUNEY,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD,

Respondent.

Case No.: 14CV1470 BEN (DHB)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION;

(2) DENYING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;

(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

[Docket No. 27] 

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. (Docket No. 1). Following briefing, on August 27, 2015, Magistrate 

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

recommending that the Petition be denied. (Docket No. 27). Objections to the Report 

and Recommendation were due by September 11, 2015. (Id.) No objections have been 

filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

///

///

Case 3:14-cv-01470-BEN-DHB Document 28 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 2
2

14CV1470 BEN (DHB)

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

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 makes it 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 parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

However, the Court has conducted a de novo review, and in the absence of any 

objections, the Court fully ADOPTS Judge Barticks’s Report and Recommendation. The 

Petition is DENIED. 

The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability because the issues are not 

debatable among jurists of reason and there are no questions adequate to deserve 

encouragement. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). The Clerk of Court 

shall enter judgment DENYING the Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 8, 2015

Case 3:14-cv-01470-BEN-DHB Document 28 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 2