Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00031/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00031-0/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

- 1 - 06cv0031

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMIL NAEEM,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06cv0031-LAB (JMA)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

ROBERT HERNANDEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner originally filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 6, 2006. On

January 31, 2006, Petitioner was given notice regarding possible failure to exhaust and the one-year

limitations period under AEDPA. 

On June 21, 2006, Respondent moved to dismiss the petition. Petitioner filed no opposition

to the motion. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Jan Adler for report and recommendation

(R&R). On September 26, 2006, Judge Adler issued his R&R, recommending that Respondent’s

motion to dismiss be granted and the petition be dismissed with prejudice. The parties were ordered

to file any objections to the R&R by November 3, 2006. The R&R advised the parties that failure to

timely object may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal. Neither party objected to the

R&R.

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation

concerning a dispositive pretrial motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge to whom the case

is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any

Case 3:06-cv-00031-LAB-JMA Document 11 Filed 01/09/07 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 - 06cv0031

portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made in

accordance with this rule.” Id. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If no

objection is made, this Court may adopt the R&R without review. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003) (“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.”)

(en banc).

Out of an abundance of caution, the Court has reviewed the petition and the R&R. The R&R

concluded that the petition was time-barred under AEDPA because Petitioner filed his petition in

federal court more than five years after expiration of the limitations period. The Court finds the R&R

to be well-reasoned and correct in its conclusions. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.

Respondent’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the petition is hereby DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 9, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00031-LAB-JMA Document 11 Filed 01/09/07 Page 2 of 2