Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02788/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02788-1/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

18cv2788-AJB-LL

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

D’MARE ATTE FRANKLIN,

Petitioner,

v.

RALPH DIAZ,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv2788-AJB-LL

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION, (Doc. No. 15), 

(2) DENYING PETITION, (Doc. No. 

1), AND 

(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

Presently before the Court is Petitioner D’Mare Atte Franklin’s (“Petitioner”) 

petition for writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.)

Respondent Ralph Diaz (“Respondent”) filed an answer to the Petition, (Doc. No. 10), and 

Petitioner filed a traverse. (Doc. No. 12.) The Court referred the matter to the Honorable 

Linda Lopez, Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

recommending the Court deny the Petition. (Doc. No. 15.) The parties were instructed to 

file written objections by August 20, 2019, and replies by September 10, 2019. (Id. at 21.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 

Case 3:18-cv-02788-AJB-LL Document 16 Filed 10/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2788-AJB-LL

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

district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to 

which objection is made,” and “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)(C); 

see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617–18 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the 

absence of timely objections, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error 

on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)

advisory committee’s note (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

Neither party timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Lopez’s R&R. Having 

reviewed the R&R, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Lopez’s R&R is thorough, wellreasoned, and contains no clear error.

Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lopez’s R&R, (2) 

DENIES the Petition on the merits, and (3) DECLINES to issue a certificate of 

appealability.1 The Court Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2019

 

1 When a district court enters a final order adverse to the applicant in a habeas proceeding, 

it must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A 

certificate of appealability is required to appeal a final order in a habeas proceeding. See 

id. A certificate of appealability is appropriate only where the petitioner makes “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326 (2003). Under this standard, the petitioner must demonstrate 

that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in 

a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement 

to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 474 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. 

Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)).

Case 3:18-cv-02788-AJB-LL Document 16 Filed 10/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2788-AJB-LL

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

Case 3:18-cv-02788-AJB-LL Document 16 Filed 10/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3