Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01064/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01064-1/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

17-cv-1064-AJB-PCL

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 Anthony Williams,

Petitioner,

v.

Stuart Sherman, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 17-cv-1064-AJB-PCL

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; AND

(2) DENYING PETITIONER’S WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. Nos. 1, 16)

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Joseph Williams’ writ of habeas corpus. 

(Doc. No. 1.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis for a Report 

and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. No. 16.) The R&R recommends (1) approving and 

adopting the R&R; and (2) dismissing Williams’ habeas petition. (Id. at 9.) The parties 

were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by February 9, 2018. (Id. at 9–10.) 

Williams filed a statement of non-objection. (Doc. No. 17.)

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 R&R. The 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 

Case 3:17-cv-01064-AJB-PCL Document 18 Filed 02/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17-cv-1064-AJB-PCL

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

made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 

874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), 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 note to the 1983 amendment; 

see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Lewis’s R&R. Having 

reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lewis’s R&R; and (2) 

DENIES Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

When a district court enters a final order adverse to the applicant in a habeas corpus 

proceeding, it must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability, which is required to 

appeal a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate 

of appealability is appropriate only where the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 330 (2003)

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)). 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, 483–84 (2000) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Here, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate the 

Court’s conclusion to dismiss with prejudice Petitioner’s claims and therefore DECLINES

to issue a certificate of appealability. The Court Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 12, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01064-AJB-PCL Document 18 Filed 02/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2