Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02225/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02225-2/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

05cv2225

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES EARL FELDER,

Petitioner,

v.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, Secretary of

the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv2225-L(CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

TO STAY AND ABEY

Petitioner Charles Earl Felder, proceeding in pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge

Cathy Ann Bencivengo for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

and Civil Local Rule 72.3. 

In his first amended petition, Petitioner asserted three claims. Respondent filed a

response, arguing that Petitioner failed to exhaust one of his claims. Petitioner subsequently

filed a Motion to Hold Proceedings on Petition in Abeyance, seeking to stay this action while he

returned to state court to exhaust the unexhausted claim. 

On February 1, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,

recommending Petitioner’s motion be denied without prejudice. The recommendation is based

/ / / / /

Case 3:05-cv-02225-L-CAB Document 31 Filed 03/12/07 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 05cv2225

on the finding that a stay and abeyance of the proceedings is not necessary because the claim

was exhausted. Neither party filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision” 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). Section 636(b)(1) does not require some lesser review by the

district court when no objections are filed. 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 the 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 any objections, the court ADOPTS the Report

and Recommendation and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner’s Motion to Hold

Proceedings on Petition in Abeyance. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 12, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-02225-L-CAB Document 31 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 2