Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02109/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02109-1/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

HENDERSON L. JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

Case No. 13cv2109 DMS (NLS)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

vs.

FRANK CHAVEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner Henderson L. Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. He challenges on due process grounds a citation with

a Rules Violation Report for possession of a mobile phone charger while incarcerated. The petition

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes for a report and recommendation

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d).

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to allege a cognizable claim under

28 U.S.C. Section 2254. Petitioner did not oppose the motion. On January 6, 2014, the Magistrate

Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending to dismiss the Petition. Petitioner has not

filed objections. 

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a dispositive

matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The court shall make a de novo determination of

those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not

- 1 -

Case 3:13-cv-02109-DMS-NLS Document 8 Filed 02/25/14 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

require review by the district court under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50

(1985). The "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) (emphasis in original); see Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263

F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003) (applying Reyna-Tapia to habeas review). 

In the absence of objections, the court adopts the Report and Recommendation. The petition

is dismissed for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. For the same reasons,

certificate of appealability is also denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 24, 2014

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:13-cv-02109-DMS-NLS Document 8 Filed 02/25/14 Page 2 of 2