Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00848/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00848-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

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

06CV848

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MUSTAFA SIRAT,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES E. TILTON,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06-CV-848-L(RBB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING

MOTION TO DISMISS [doc. #10];

and DIRECTING ENTRY OF

JUDGMENT

Petitioner Mustafa Sirat, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on December 11,

2006. [doc. #10] The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks for a

report and recommendation (“Report”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local

Rule 72.3. On July 13, 2007, the magistrate judge issued a Report recommending the petition be

denied. Although given an opportunity to object to the Report, petitioner has not filed an

Objection to the Report within the time provided.

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 3:06-cv-00848-L-RBB Document 14 Filed 08/23/07 Page 1 of 4
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 06CV848

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. ReynaTapia, 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 in its

entirety. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in

accordance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 23, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Mustafa Sirat, #P-78847

CTF

P.O. Box 686

Soledad, CA 93960

United States Attorney’s Office

Southern District of California

Civil Division

880 Front Street, Ste 6253

San Diego, CA 92101

Case 3:06-cv-00848-L-RBB Document 14 Filed 08/23/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3 06CV848

Case 3:06-cv-00848-L-RBB Document 14 Filed 08/23/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4 06CV848

Case 3:06-cv-00848-L-RBB Document 14 Filed 08/23/07 Page 4 of 4