Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02127/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02127-1/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

- 1 - 09cv2127

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALDO OJITO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv2127-LAB (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

vs.

KEN CLARK, warden,

Defendant.

Petitioner, a prisoner in state custody, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction for two counts of second degree

murder. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jan Adler for report and

recommendation. On March 2, 2011, Judge Adler issued his report and recommendation

(the "R&R"), recommending that the petition be denied. Objections were due March 25,

2011, but Petitioner filed none and did not seek additional time within which to do so.

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "A judge of the court may

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court reviews de novo those portions of the

R&R to which specific written objection is made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). "The statute makes it clear that the district judge must

Case 3:09-cv-02127-LAB-JMA Document 20 Filed 10/06/11 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 - 09cv2127

review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made,

but not otherwise." Id. When no objections are filed, the Court need not review the report

and recommendation de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005).

See also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003)

(applying Reyna-Tapia to habeas review).

The Court has reviewed the R&R, finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. The petition

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 5, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02127-LAB-JMA Document 20 Filed 10/06/11 Page 2 of 2