Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00095/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00095-0/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

- 1 - 10cv95

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELCHOR LLAMAS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv95-MMA (WMc)

vs. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

[Doc. No. 13]

DENYING WITH PREJUDICE

PETITIONER’S FIRST AMENDED

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

[Doc. No. 4]

DOMINGO URIBE, JR., Warden,

Defendant.

Petitioner Melchor Llamas, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a

first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Doc. No. 4],

challenging a September 3, 2008 decision by the California Board of Prison Terms denying his

request for parole. Respondent filed an answer to the first amended petition [Doc. No. 9]. Petitioner

did not file a traverse, despite requesting and receiving an extension of time in which to do so [Doc.

Nos. 10 & 11]. The matter is currently before the Court for review of the Report and

Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. recommending

that the first amended petition be denied [Doc. No. 13]. 

///

Case 3:10-cv-00095-MMA-WMC Document 14 Filed 09/02/11 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

- 2 - 10cv95

 Judge McCurine issued a well reasoned and thorough Report recommending the first

amended petition be denied in its entirety. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due

no later than July 15, 2011. To date, Petitioner has not filed any objections. 

Where, as here, the case has been referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he 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); see also

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “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). “Neither the Constitution nor

the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties

themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Accordingly, a district court is

entitled to adopt a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation based on the lack of objections. 

Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review and agrees that the first amended petition

should be denied with prejudice. 

Accordingly, in the absence of objections and after conducting a de novo review, the Court

ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and DENIES WITH PREJUDICE

Petitioner’s first amended petition. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:10-cv-00095-MMA-WMC Document 14 Filed 09/02/11 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

- 3 - 10cv95

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final

order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11 foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A petitioner may not seek an appeal

of a claim arising out of a state court detention unless the petitioner first obtains a certificate of

appealability from a district judge or circuit judge under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Fed. R. App. Proc.

22(b). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a certificate of appealability will issue only if the petitioner

makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

For the reasons set forth in detail in the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, a certificate of

appealability should not issue in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 2, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00095-MMA-WMC Document 14 Filed 09/02/11 Page 3 of 3