Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01301/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01301-1/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

COREY ANTHONY COLLINS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12-CV-1301 - IEG (WMC)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING IN FULL REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc.

No. 10]

AND

(2) GRANTING MOTION FOR

STAY AND ABEYANCE [Doc. No.

2]

vs.

DOMINGO URIBE, JR., Warden; KAMALA

D. HARRIS,

Respondents.

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Corey Anthony Collins’s (“Petitioner”) motion for

stay and abeyance. [Doc. No. 2.] Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“the Petition”) on May 29, 2012. [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner in his motion for stay

and abeyance requests the Court to stay further proceedings on his Petition in order to exhaust his

sufficiency of the evidence claim, which is listed as ground three in the Petition. [Doc. No. 2,

Pet.’s Mot. at 5-6.]

The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr., who issued a

Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that Petitioner’s motion for stay and

abeyance be granted. [Doc. No. 10.] The R & R concludes that Petitioner has shown good cause

to grant a stay of the action. [Id. at 6.] The time for filing objections to the R & R expired on

- 1 - 12cv1301

Case 3:12-cv-01301-DMS-WMC Document 13 Filed 01/07/13 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

October 31, 2012. Respondents have not filed any objections. 

DISCUSSION

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R & R to which objections are made. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. However, “[t]he 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). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a

district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept

as correct.” Id.

In this case, the time for filing objections to the R & R passed over two months ago and

Respondents have not filed any objections. Accordingly, the Court may adopt the R & R on that

basis alone. See id. Having reviewed Petitioner’s motion, Defendant Domingo Uribe’s response

to the Court’s order to show [Doc. No. 9], and the R & R, the Court hereby approves and

ADOPTS IN FULL the R & R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the R & R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL

the R & R and GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 7, 2013 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv1301

Case 3:12-cv-01301-DMS-WMC Document 13 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 2