Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02378/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02378-2/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

ESTEBAN SANDOVAL,

Petitioner,

Case No. 14-cv-2378-BAS(PCL)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS

ENTIRETY; AND

(2) GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

[ECF Nos. 13, 23]

v.

WARREN L. MONTGOMERY,

Respondent.

On October 2, 2014, Petitioner Esteban Sandoval, a state prisoner proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding that found him guilty of

constructive possession of a deadly weapon, which resulted in the loss of 360 days of

earned custody credits. On February 10, 2015, Respondent Warren L. Montgomery

filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Petitioner opposed the motion.

On July 29, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewisissued a Report

and Recommendation (“report”) recommending that this Court grant Respondent’s

- 1 - 14cv2378

Case 3:14-cv-02378-BAS-PCL Document 24 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 3
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

motion to dismiss and enter judgment dismissing the petition with prejudice for failure

to file within the applicable statute of limitations. Judge Lewis ordered any objections

to be filed no later than August 21, 2015, and any replies be filed no later than

September 18, 2015. To date, no objections have been filed, and neither party has

requested additional time to do so.

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But “[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) (emphasis in original);

see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding

that where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the

magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district

judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves

accept as correct.” Id. “When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived.” 

Marshall v. Astrue, No. 08cv1735, 2010 WL 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010)

(Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed

objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so).

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was on August 21, 2015. 

However, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional time

to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Having nonetheless conducted a de novo review of the

habeas petition, Respondent’s motion to dismiss, Petitioner’s opposition, and the

report, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS the report in its entirety (ECF No. 23),

and GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13). See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). The Court further ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment

dismissing the petition with prejudice for failure to file within the applicable statute of

- 2 - 14cv2378

Case 3:14-cv-02378-BAS-PCL Document 24 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 3
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

limitation in accordance with Judge Lewis’ recommendation. 

Moreover, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant makes a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

Petitioner has not made this showing. Because reasonable jurists would not find the

Court’s assessment of the claims debatable or wrong, the Court DECLINES to issue

a certificate of appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 22, 2015

Hon. Cynthia Bashant

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv2378

Case 3:14-cv-02378-BAS-PCL Document 24 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 3