Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00164/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00164-0/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

06cv164

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANTANA ANN FERGUSON,

Petitioner,

v.

RON KEENAN,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06-CV-164-L(LSP)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Santana Ann Ferguson seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The Honorable Leo S. Papas entered a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), under 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1), recommending denial of the petition. Neither party has filed objections to the

Report. 

The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district court “shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge.” Id. Under this statute, “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.) (en banc), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 238 (2003); see Schmidt

v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003) (applying Reyna-Tapia’s

Case 3:06-cv-00164-L-LSP Document 11 Filed 11/20/06 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 06cv164

holding to a habeas corpus proceeding).

The Court has independently reviewed the Report and all relevant papers submitted by

both parties and finds that the Report presents a well-reasoned analysis of the issues petitioner

raises. Accordingly, having carefully considered the record, applicable law, and good cause

appearing, IT IS ORDERED adopting in its entirety the Report and Recommendation filed

August 3, 2006. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in accordance

with the Report and Recommendation, and this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 20, 2006

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LEO S. PAPAS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-00164-L-LSP Document 11 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 2