Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02665/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02665-1/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

KERRY ROBERTS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11cv2665 WQH (BLM)

ORDER

vs.

DOMINGO URIBE, Warden,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Reports and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No.

8) of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major, filed on March 19, 2012. 

I. Background

On November 14, 2011, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF 

No. 1). On January 17, 2012, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that

Petitioner had not completed his habeas proceedings in state court, Petitioner had procedurally

defaulted, and only one claim had been properly exhausted. (ECF No. 6). Respondent

contends that Petitioner had a state habeas petition pending before the California Supreme

Court; however, a ruling had not been issued. Respondent contends that the “federal Petition

should be dismissed pending a final decision by the California Supreme Court concerning his

habeas petition.” Id. at 3. 

On March 19, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF

No. 8) recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be denied. The Magistrate Judge states:

- 1 - 11cv2665 WQH (BLM)

Case 3:11-cv-02665-WQH-BLM Document 9 Filed 05/24/12 Page 1 of 3
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

“Respondent acknowledges that the California Supreme Court’s ruling ... could affect

[Respondent’s arguments that the claims are unexhausted or procedurally defaulted].” Id. at

4. The Magistrate Judge stated: “Because the California Supreme Court has since issued its

ruling, and because the California Supreme Court’s order directly impacts the arguments

proffered by Respondent in his motion to dismiss, the Court RECOMMENDS that

Respondent’s motion to dismiss be DENIED without prejudice.” Id. 

The Magistrate Judge concluded: 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than April 3, 2012, any party to

this action may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy

on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report

and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections

shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than April

17, 2012. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within

the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on

appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455

(9th Cir. 1998).

Id. at 4-5. 

To date, neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

II. Discussion

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

Magistrate Judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). When a party objects to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the [district]

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 district court need not review the Report and Recommendation de novo. See

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in this

case. This Court has reviewed the record and the Report and Recommendation in their

- 2 - 11cv2665 WQH (BLM)

Case 3:11-cv-02665-WQH-BLM Document 9 Filed 05/24/12 Page 2 of 3
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

entirety. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly denied the Motion to Dismiss

without prejudice because the California Supreme Court issued a ruling on Petitioner state

habeas corpus petition. 

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.8) is

adopted in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondent (ECF No. 6) is DENIED

without prejudice. 

DATED: May 24, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv2665 WQH (BLM)

Case 3:11-cv-02665-WQH-BLM Document 9 Filed 05/24/12 Page 3 of 3