Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01040/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01040-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED LEVAO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 10-CV-1040 W (NLS)

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 48]

AND

(2) DENYING PETITIONER’S

FIRST AMENDED PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

[DOC. 16]

vs.

D.T. LEWIS, Warden,

Respondent.

On January 7, 2011, United Levao (“Petitioner”), a California prisoner

proceeding pro se, filed his first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). [Doc. 16.] Levao is serving an indeterminate sentence of

15 years to life for first-degree murder. He contests his confinement, alleging that his

due process rights and other constitutional rights under the fourth, fifth, sixth and

-1- 10cv1040w

Case 3:10-cv-01040-W-NLS Document 49 Filed 04/03/13 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

fourteenth amendments were violated from the time he was first detained up through

his trial and conviction. Respondent filed an answer, and then as directed by the court,

an amended answer, arguing that the court should deny the Petition on all grounds. 

[Docs. 40, 46.] The court granted Levao’s 60-day extension request for him to file his

traverse. [Doc. 47.] The traverse was due December 14, 2012. As of the date of this

order, no traverse has been filed.

On January 31, 2013, after a review of the Petition, amended answer, and

complete record in the case, United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a

Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that this Court deny the

Petition. [Doc. 48.] The Report also ordered that any objection was to be filed by

February 22, 2013. (Id. at 20.) To date, neither party has filed an objection or made

a request for additional time to do so.

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, and a party’s objections thereto, are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are

filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) “makes it clearthat the district

judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise”) (emphasis in original); 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). This rule

of law is well-established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v.

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R

& R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”) (emphasis added)

(citing Renya-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949

(S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because

-2- 10cv1040w

Case 3:10-cv-01040-W-NLS Document 49 Filed 04/03/13 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

neither party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so); see also

Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

Accordingly, the Court accepts Magistrate Judge Stormes’ recommendation, and

ADOPTS the Report in its entirety [Doc. 48]. For the reasons stated in the Report,

which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court DENIES the Petition [Doc. 16].

The district court clerk shall close the district court case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 3, 2013

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

-3- 10cv1040w

Case 3:10-cv-01040-W-NLS Document 49 Filed 04/03/13 Page 3 of 3