Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00174/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00174-1/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

17cv174-CAB-AGS

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

ANDREW MUNDY,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYMOND MADDEN,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv174-CAB-AGS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND 

DENYING MOTION FOR A STAY 

AND DISMISSING UNEXHAUSTED 

CLAIM [Doc. Nos. 6, 11]

On January 26, 2017, Petitioner Andrew Mundy (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, [Doc. No. 1.] On June 15, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion 

for stay and abeyance. [Doc. No. 6.] On June 29, 2017, Respondent filed an opposition 

to the motion for stay and abeyance. [Doc. No. 9.] 

On December 4, 2017, Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the Court deny the motion for stay and 

dismiss the unexhausted ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. [Doc. No. 11.] The 

Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed within 14 days. [Report at 2.] To 

date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which 

to file an objection.

Case 3:17-cv-00174-CAB-AGS Document 12 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv174-CAB-AGS

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

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 

Federal rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are 

filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation 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.

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to the Report. Having reviewed it, 

the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s Report and 

Recommendation [Doc. No. 11] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, 

which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court DENIES the motion for stay and 

abeyance [Doc. No. 6] and DISMISSES the unexhausted ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00174-CAB-AGS Document 12 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2