Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02065/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02065-2/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

- 1 - 09CV2065

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERBERT SHEDD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09CV2065 JLS (POR)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. No. 13.)

vs.

GEORGE A. NEOTTI,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1), and

Magistrate Judge Porter’s report and recommendation recommending the Court deny Plaintiff’s

petition. (Doc. No. 15.) 

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). However, in the absence of

timely objection, the Court “need only 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

Case 3:09-cv-02065-JLS-POR Document 14 Filed 01/31/11 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 - 09CV2065

(citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to timely file objections to Magistrate Judge Porter’s report and

recommendation. Having reviewed the report and recommendation, the Court finds that it is

thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS

Magistrate Judge Porter’s report and recommendation and (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s petition for

habeas corpus. This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 31, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02065-JLS-POR Document 14 Filed 01/31/11 Page 2 of 2