Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_01-cv-00057/USCOURTS-casd-3_01-cv-00057-2/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

01cv0057

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER BERLIN ROBERTS,

Petitioner,

v.

STEVEN CAMBRA, Jr., Interim Director,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 01cv0057-L(POR)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION, AND (2)

GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

Petitioner, Christopher Berlin Roberts, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition

for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order filed April 11, 2007, the court

construed Petitioner’s Declaration of Abandonment of Unexhausted Claims as a motion for

leave to amend his petition by adding exhausted claims. The case was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d). 

On February 15, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,

recommending to deny Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend with respect to all claims except

for claim no. 6, which alleged that Petitioner’s sentence to life in prison without possibility of

parole constituted a cruel and unusual punishment under the circumstances of his case.

/ / / / /

Case 3:01-cv-00057-L-POR Document 43 Filed 06/12/08 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 01cv0057

On February 25, 2008, Petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to file objections

to the report and recommendation. By order dated March 3, 2008, the court granted Petitioner’s

request, and set April 17, 2008 as the last date for Petitioner to file objections. No objections

have been timely filed.

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 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 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 objections, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. For

the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend is

GRANTED with respect to claim no. 6 and DENIED WITH PREJUDICE in all other

respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 11, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LOUISA S. PORTER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:01-cv-00057-L-POR Document 43 Filed 06/12/08 Page 2 of 2