Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01481/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01481-1/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 

18cv1481-LAB (MDD)

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 

TREVIYON DESHAWN REW, 

Petitioner,

v. 

DEAN BORDERS, 

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv1481-LAB (MDD) 

ORDER PERMITTING 

PETITIONER TO FILE 

SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS 

TO REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 Petitioner Treviyon Deshawn Rew, through counsel, filed a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to Magistrate 

Judge Mitchell Dembin for report and recommendation. After receiving briefing, 

Judge Dembin on April 4 issued a comprehensive 33-page report and 

recommendation, (the “R&R”), recommending that the habeas petition be denied 

both because claims were procedurally defaulted, and on the merits. 

 After requesting and being granted an extension of time, Rew’s counsel filed 

3-page objections to the R&R. He objects to the R&R’s recommendation that 

claims four and five be denied as procedurally defaulted. His only argument in 

favor of this is that a “fundamental miscarriage of justice” will result from failure to 

consider the claims on their merits. (Obj. to R&R (Docket no. 17), at 2.) He also 

objects to the R&R’s recommendation that all five claims be denied on the merits, 

Case 3:18-cv-01481-LAB-MDD Document 18 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18cv1481-LAB (MDD)

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

but makes no argument in support of this. Instead, the objections merely refer the 

Court to the original petition. (Id., at 3.) 

 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), a party may file “specific written objections” 

to the R&R. And under 72(b)(3), the Court must review de novo those portions of 

the R&R that have been “properly objected to.” While the Ninth Circuit has not yet 

considered the effect of generalized, blanket, or conclusory objections, several 

other circuits have held that they do not trigger de novo review. See United States 

v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007); Howard v. Sec’y of H.H.S., 932 

F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 

1988); Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984). In particular, the Sixth Circuit 

explained that permitting generalized objections would undermine the 

congressional policy underlying the Federal Magistrates Act, and would render the 

report and recommendation procedure a waste of time. Howard, 932 F.2d at 509. 

District courts within this circuit have followed this principle. See, e.g., Weber v. 

Ryan, 2018 WL 4620546, slip op. at *4 (D. Ariz., Sept. 26, 2018); Pittman v. 

Spearman, 2017 WL 526541, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal., Feb. 9, 2017); Griffin v. Safeway 

Corp., 2016 WL 5858986, at *1 (E.D. Wash., Oct. 6, 2016); Encarnacion-Montero 

v. Sanders, 2015 WL 3823891, at *2 (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2015). 

 The Court recognizes that it has discretion to review the entire R&R even 

without objections, and “may accept, reject, or modify” it. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Here, however, the R&R is 33 pages long. 

Conducting a de novo review of the entire R&R based on nothing more than a 

conclusory assertion of a fundamental miscarriage of justice and a request to look 

at the whole petition again would be a monumental waste of judicial resources. 

This is particularly true because Rew’s counsel had nearly a month to review the 

R&R, identify any objectionable portions, and draft specific objections that included 

arguments and citations to authority. If there are errors in the R&R, he is in the 

best position to bring them to the Court’s attention. 

Case 3:18-cv-01481-LAB-MDD Document 18 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18cv1481-LAB (MDD)

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

 If Rew’s counsel wishes to file supplemental objections to the R&R, he may 

do so no later than May 30, 2019. If he does not file supplemental objections, the 

Court will treat the R&R as not properly objected to. In that event, the Court would 

not be required to conduct a de novo review of the R&R or any portion of it. See 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 

(holding that a district court must review report and recommendation “de novo if 

objection is made, but not otherwise). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 7, 2019 

 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01481-LAB-MDD Document 18 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3