Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00102/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00102-2/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 – 16cv102

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

CHRIS LEON SPELLS,

Petitioner,

Case No. 16-cv-102-BAS (WVG)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS 

ENTIRETY; 

(2) DENYING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Respondents.

INTRODUCTION

On January 14, 2016, Petitioner Chris Leon Spells brought a Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the denial of his 

petition for resentencing under the California Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012.

(ECF No. 1.) Respondents answered on April 5, 2016, and Petitioner filed his traverse

on May 3, 2016.

On August 5, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo issued a 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court deny the 

Petition. (ECF No. 10.) Magistrate Judge Gallo also ordered that any objections be 

filed no later than September 9, 2016, and any replies no later than September 30, 

Case 3:16-cv-00102-BAS-WVG Document 11 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 16cv102

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

2016. To date, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested 

additional time to do so.

DISCUSSION

The Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which objections are 

made. See 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. “The 

statute makes it clear,” however, “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); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the district 

court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the 

Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and 

recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d at 1121. This legal rule is well-established in the Ninth Circuit and this district. 

See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo 

review of a[n] R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”); 

Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting 

report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the 

report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 

1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was September 9, 2016. 

However, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional 

time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of 

the Petition (ECF No. 1), Respondents’ Answer (ECF No. 7), Petitioner’s Traverse

(ECF No. 9), the lodgments (ECF No. 8), and Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R, the 

Court concludes that Judge Gallo’s reasoning is sound. Accordingly, the Court 

Case 3:16-cv-00102-BAS-WVG Document 11 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 16cv102

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

approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 11, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-00102-BAS-WVG Document 11 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 3