Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00521/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00521-1/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

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

TAM STEVE NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 17-cv-0521-WQH-NLS

v. ORDER

DANIEL PARAMO, WARDEN,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

issued by United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes (ECF No. 8).

I. Background

On March 15, 2017, Petitioner Tam Steve Nguyen, proceeding pro se, filed a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 1). Nguyen “is challenging a prison

disciplinary finding that took place at[] Richard J. Donovan Correctional facility.” Id.

at 1. 

On May 22, 2017, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition. (ECF No.

6). On June 5, 2017, Petitioner filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to

Dismiss. (ECF No. 7). On August 3, 2017, United State Magistrate Judge Nita L.

Stormes issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Motion to

Dismiss be granted. (ECF No. 8). The docket reflects that no objections have been

filed to the Report and Recommendation.

- 1 - 17-cv-0521-WQH-NLS

Case 3:17-cv-00521-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 09/26/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

II. 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). 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 made by the magistrate.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a

Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416

F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act]

requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the

parties themselves accept as correct.”).

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the

submissions of the parties. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly

recommended that the Motion to Dismiss be granted. The Report and Recommendation

is adopted in its entirety. 

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8)

is adopted in its entirety. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus is granted. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed without

prejudice to Petitioner pursing his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

DATED: September 26, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 17-cv-0521-WQH-NLS

Case 3:17-cv-00521-WQH-NLS Document 9 Filed 09/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2