Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02225/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02225-5/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

05cv2225

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES EARL FELDER,

Petitioner,

v.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, Secretary of

the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv2225-L(CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Petitioner Charles Earl Felder, proceeding in pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge

Cathy Ann Bencivengo for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

and Civil Local Rule 72.3. On January 30, 2008 the Magistrate Judge issued a report and

recommendation, recommending the Petition be denied.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision” 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). Section 636(b)(1) does not require some lesser review by the

Case 3:05-cv-02225-L-CAB Document 42 Filed 04/03/08 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

2 05cv2225

district court when no objections are filed. 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 the 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 any objections, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. 

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 3, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-02225-L-CAB Document 42 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 2