Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01115/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01115-1/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

16cv1115-JLS (NLS)

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

SENGNGUEN KOULAVONGSA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv1115-JLS (NLS)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION AND (2) 

DENYING AMENDED PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(ECF Nos. 6, 14)

Presently before the Court are Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus (“Amended Pet.”), (ECF No. 6), and Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes’s

Report and Recommendation for Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“R. 

& R.”), (ECF No. 23).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The 

district court 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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United 

States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 

617 (9th Cir. 1989). In the absence of timely objection, however, the Court “need only 

Case 3:16-cv-01115-JLS-NLS Document 15 Filed 03/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16cv1115-JLS (NLS)

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

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 

recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. 

Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

In the present case, Petitioner’s objections were due by November 17, 2016. (R. & 

R. 9.) Over three months have passed since the due date, and the Court has heard nothing 

from Petitioner. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to timely object to the Report and 

Recommendation. 

Finally, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that it is 

well reasoned and contains no clear error—Petitioner’s claim regarding his counsel’s 

failure to object to certain evidence is foreclosed by Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 

(1973), and Petitioner offers no evidence that his plea was coerced or that he would have 

obtained a more favorable verdict at trial. The Court therefore (1) ADOPTS in its entirety 

Judge Stormes’s Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 23), and (2) DENIES WITH 

PREJUDICE the Amended Petition, (ECF No. 6). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01115-JLS-NLS Document 15 Filed 03/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2