Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02194/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02194-3/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

- 1 - 06CV2194

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT NOAH HODGE, JR.,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06CV2194-LAB (NLS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION

[Dkt Nos. 10, 13]

vs.

KRAMER, Director of California

Department of Corrections; KATHY

MENDOZA POWERS, Warden of Avenal

State Prison,

Respondents.

Petitioner Robert Noah Hodge, Jr. ("Hodge"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se with

a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas Petition, challenges the constitutionality of his sentence following

his plea of guilty on June 3, 1999 to one count of selling cocaine and after admitting certain

prison and strike priors. Respondent moved to dismiss Hodge's First Amended Petition on

grounds it is barred by the 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) statute of limitations. Dkt No. 10. Hodge

opposed the motion on grounds the government allegedly interfered with his access to the

courts by losing his court transcripts and other legal documents, and he is therefore entitled

to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Dkt No. 12. 

Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes prepared a Report and Recommendation ("R&R")

that Respondent's Motion be granted, carefully demonstrating Hodge failed to show

Case 3:06-cv-02194-LAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 05/10/07 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 1

The Court has nevertheless reviewed de novo the conclusions of law in the R&R. Based

on this review, the Court agrees with Judge Stormes' legal analysis and conclusions.

- 2 - 06CV2194

entitlement to either statutory or equitable tolling of the long-expired statute of limitations,

even applying relation back doctrine. The deadline to file Objections to the R&R passed

April 20, 2007, with none filed. 

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision" on a

dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the

parties for all purposes. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). "The 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). That statutory provision does not require the

district court to conduct some lesser review when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.)

(en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003) (the "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").1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Court ADOPTS

the Report and Recommendation: Respondent's Motion is GRANTED, and the Petition is

DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall enter

judgment denying the Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 9, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02194-LAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 2