Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01795/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01795-1/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

BARRON SIMMONS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 10CV1795 DMS (BGS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION,

DENYING PETITION, AND

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, 

Respondent.

Petitioner Barron Simmons, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge

Bernard G. Skomal for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and

Civil Local Rule 72.1(d). The case was initially stayed to give Petitioner time to exhaust his state

remedies. After completion of state court proceedings, on August 24, 2012, Respondent filed a

response. Petitioner did not file a traverse. On October 10, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a

Report and Recommendation recommending to deny the Petition. Petitioner has not filed any

objections.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a dispositive

matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The 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 de novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not

- 1 - 10cv1795

Case 3:10-cv-01795-DMS-BGS Document 20 Filed 11/28/12 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

require review by the district court under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50

(1985). 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." United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263

F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003) (applying Reyna-Tapia to habeas review). 

In the absence of objections, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. The

petition is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. For the same reasons,

certificate of appealability is also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 27, 2012

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:10-cv-01795-DMS-BGS Document 20 Filed 11/28/12 Page 2 of 2