Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01910/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01910-3/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

ELMER DWAYNE JAMES,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11-CV-1910 - IEG (NLS)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING IN FULL REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION;

[Doc. No. 18]

(2) DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND

[Doc. No. 1]

(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary,

Respondent.

Before the Court is Petitioner Elmer Dwayne James’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“the Petition”). [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner was convicted of first

degree robbery in San Diego County Superior Court and sentenced to five years in state prison. 

[Id. at 2-3.] He claims that his appointed counsel’s failure to object to or appeal the decision at

trial not to grant immunity to a prospective defense witness violated his Sixth Amendment right to

the effective assistance of counsel. [Id. at 6.]

The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes, who issued a Report

and Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that the Petition be denied. [Doc. No. 18.] The R

& R concludes that the Petition should be denied because the sole claim presented is procedurally

defaulted and without merit. [See id. at 2.] The time for filing objections to the R & R expired on

- 1 - 11cv1910

Case 3:11-cv-01910-IEG-NLS Document 19 Filed 09/14/12 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

July 31, 2012. [See id. at 28] Petitioner has not filed any objections. 

DISCUSSION

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R & R to which objections are made. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. However, “[t]he 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 original). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a

district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept

as correct.” Id.

In this case, the time for filing objections to the R & R passed over a month ago and

Petitioner has not filed any objections. Accordingly, the Court may adopt the R & R on that basis

alone. See id. Having reviewed the Petition, Respondent’s Answer, [Doc. No. 17], and the R & R,

the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN FULL the R & R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the R & R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL

the R & R and DENIES the Petition. The Court also DENIES a certificate of appealability

because Petitioner has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 13, 2012

______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 2 - 11cv1910

Case 3:11-cv-01910-IEG-NLS Document 19 Filed 09/14/12 Page 2 of 2