Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01855/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01855-2/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 - 06cv1855 WQH (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GONZALO M. TORRES,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06cv1855 WQH (RBB)

ORDER

vs.

B. CURRY, Warden,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc.

# 17) filed on August 23, 2007 by the United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks. 

On September 13, 2006, Petitioner Gonzalo M. Torres filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus. (Doc. # 1). On January 12, 2007, Respondent B. Curry filed a Motion to

Dismiss the Petition on grounds that the Petition was barred by the statute of limitations set

forth by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(“AEDPA”), and that Petitioner procedurally defaulted on all claims. (Doc. # 9). On

August 23, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge Brooks issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending that this Court grant the Motion to Dismiss the Petition as

barred by AEDPA’s statute of limitations. R&R, p. 24. The parties were ordered to file

any objections to the Report and Recommendation on or before September 10, 2007. 

Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 22). 

Case 3:06-cv-01855-WQH-RBB Document 23 Filed 12/04/07 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 - 06cv1855 WQH (RBB)

RULING OF THE COURT

The duties of the district court in connection with the Report and Recommendation

of a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “must 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.” 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). The Court has reviewed de novo all aspects of the Report and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge filed on August 23, 2007, and adopts all portions of the Report and

Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation correctly concluded that the Petition

should be dismissed as time-barred under AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations; that the

Petition is not entitled to statutory or equitable tolling; and that the Petition should not be

dismissed as procedurally defaulted. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all portions of the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. # 17) are ADOPTED, and the Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (Doc. # 9) is GRANTED as barred by the statute of limitations. 

DATED: December 4, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01855-WQH-RBB Document 23 Filed 12/04/07 Page 2 of 2