Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00216/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00216-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN EMMANUEL LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11cv0216 WQH (MDD)

ORDER

vs.

DOMINGO URIBE, JR., Warden,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by the

Magistrate Judge recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner

be denied. (ECF No. 12).

BACKGROUND

On February 1, 2011, Petitioner Marvin Emmanuel Lopez filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting due process and equal protection

violations in connection with a July 2009 disciplinary hearing and sentencing that occurred

while Petitioner was incarcerated in state prison. (ECF No. 1). On May 24, 2011, Respondent

filed an Answer. (ECF No. 9). On July 8, 2011, Petitioner filed a Traverse. (ECF No. 11). 

On April 12, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Petition be denied. (ECF No. 12). The Magistrate Judge stated that 

“any written objections to this Report must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no

later than May 2, 2012 ” and that “failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order.” Id. at 15.

To date, neither party has filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

- 1 - 11cv0216 WQH (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-00216-WQH-MDD Document 13 Filed 06/20/12 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

DISCUSSION

The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of a

Magistrate Judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). A district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). When a party objects to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the

[district] 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). When no objections

are filed, the district court need not review the Report and Recommendation de novo. See

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the record in its entirety.

The Magistrate Judge correctly found that Petitioner did not suffer a due process or equal

protection violation in connection with his July 2009 disciplinary hearing and sentencing. The

Magistrate Judge correctly found that the law followed by prison administrators in sentencing

Petitioner after his disciplinary hearing was not “contrary to clearly established federal law”

and did not involve “unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.” (ECF No.

12 at 14). The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the Petition should be denied. 

Certificate of Appealability

A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue an

appeal from a final order in a Section 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when

it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” 

A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). It must appear that

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the petitioner’s constitutional

claims debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). The Court

- 2 - 11cv0216 WQH (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-00216-WQH-MDD Document 13 Filed 06/20/12 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

concludes that jurists of reason could not find it debatable whether this Court was correct in

denying the Petition. The Court denies a certificate of appealability. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 12) is

adopted in its entirety. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. The certificate

of appealability is DENIED. 

DATED: June 20, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv0216 WQH (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-00216-WQH-MDD Document 13 Filed 06/20/12 Page 3 of 3