Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01637/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01637-4/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

08cv1637

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH RINALDI,

Petitioner,

v.

M. E. POULOS et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv1637-L(POR)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND

(2) DENYING PETITION

Petitioner Joseph Rinaldi, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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). Respondents filed a response and Petitioner filed a traverse. On July

29, 2010 the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending to deny the

Petition. Petitioner has not filed any objections.

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

Case 3:08-cv-01637-L-POR Document 31 Filed 10/18/10 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 08cv1637

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, the Petition is DENIED. For the same

reasons, certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 18, 2010

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LOUISA S. PORTER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-01637-L-POR Document 31 Filed 10/18/10 Page 2 of 2