Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01481/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01481-2/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 

18cv1481-LAB (MDD)

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 

TREVIYON DESHAWN REW, 

Petitioner,

v. 

DEAN BORDERS, 

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv1481-LAB (MDD) 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS 

 Petitioner Treviyon Deshawn Rew, a prisoner in state custody, through 

counsel filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The 

petition was referred to Magistrate Judge Mitchell Dembin for a report and 

recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). After receiving 

briefing, Judge Dembin on April 5 issued a 33-page report and recommendation 

(the “R&R”), which recommended denying the petition. The R&R gave the parties 

until April 22 to file objections. Rew’s counsel requested an extension, which the 

Court granted. 

On May 2, Rew’s counsel filed three pages of objections. The objections 

conceded that three of the five claims were procedurally defaulted, but objected to 

the R&R’s determination that two other issues were procedurally defaulted, and to 

Case 3:18-cv-01481-LAB-MDD Document 19 Filed 06/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

18cv1481-LAB (MDD)

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

the R&R’s conclusion that all five claims failed on the merits. The only gestures 

towards identifying any errors were to claim a “fundamental miscarriage of justice” 

and to ask the Court to look at the petition again. The Court found the objections 

to be generalized and conclusory, rather than the “specific written objections” 

required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court then sua sponte gave Rew’s 

counsel until May 30 to file supplemental objections, and cautioned him that if he 

did not do so, the Court would treat the R&R as not properly objected to. The May 

30 deadline has passed, and no supplemental objections have been filed. 

 The Court explained in its order of May 7, 2019 why blanket, generalized, or 

conclusory objections such as those Rew’s counsel filed do not require de novo 

review of the R&R. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), a party may file “specific written 

objections” to the R&R. And under 72(b)(3), the Court must review de novo those 

portions of the R&R that have been “properly objected to.” While the Ninth Circuit 

has not yet considered the effect of generalized, blanket, or conclusory objections, 

several other circuits have held that they do not trigger de novo review. See United 

States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007); Howard v. Sec’y of H.H.S., 

932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th 

Cir. 1988); Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984). In particular, the Sixth 

Circuit explained that permitting generalized objections would undermine the 

congressional policy underlying the Federal Magistrates Act, and would render the 

report and recommendation procedure a waste of time. Howard, 932 F.2d at 509. 

District courts within this circuit have followed this principle. See, e.g., Weber v. 

Ryan, 2018 WL 4620546, slip op. at *4 (D. Ariz., Sept. 26, 2018); Pittman v. 

Spearman, 2017 WL 526541, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal., Feb. 9, 2017); Griffin v. Safeway 

Corp., 2016 WL 5858986, at *1 (E.D. Wash., Oct. 6, 2016); Encarnacion-Montero 

v. Sanders, 2015 WL 3823891, at *2 (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2015). 

The Court recognizes that it has discretion to review the entire R&R even 

without objections, and “may accept, reject, or modify” it. See 28 U.S.C. 

Case 3:18-cv-01481-LAB-MDD Document 19 Filed 06/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

18cv1481-LAB (MDD)

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

§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Here, however, the R&R is 33 pages long. 

Throwing out the entire R&R and starting afresh based on nothing more than a 

generalized and conclusory assertion that it reached the wrong result would be a 

monumental waste of judicial resources. This is particularly true because Rew’s 

counsel had nearly two months to review the R&R, identify any objectionable 

portions, and draft specific objections that included arguments and citations to 

authority and the record. But even given ample time and greater familiarity with the 

record, he has been unable to identify any errors. 

 The objections’ only mention of any specific problem with the R&R was the 

contention that Rew’s procedural default of his fourth and fifth claims should be 

excused, because a “fundamental miscarriage of justice” would result if the Court 

failed to consider those claims on their merits. This is nothing but a bare assertion, 

devoid of any factual or legal support or citation to the record. This conclusory 

objection does not require the Court’s de novo review, although the Court has 

discretion to consider it anyway. 

The “fundamental miscarriage of justice” exception for procedurally defaulted 

claims is available only where a petitioner asserts actual innocence. Vosgien v. 

Persson, 742 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 

314–15 (1995)). “Actual innocence” requires a showing that it is more likely than 

not that no reasonable juror would have convicted the petitioner; a showing of 

reasonable doubt is insufficient. Wood v. Hall, 130 F.3d 373, 379 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(citing Schlup, 513 U.S. at 327, 329)). Because Rew has never claimed he is 

actually innocent, either in his objections or in his original petition, his procedural 

defaults cannot be excused under the “fundamental miscarriage of justice” 

exception. The R&R did not err in failing to credit an argument Rew never made 

and still has not made. Furthermore, the R&R addressed all five claims and 

determined that they should be denied on the merits. To the extent this can be 

considered an objection to the R&R, it is OVERRULED. 

Case 3:18-cv-01481-LAB-MDD Document 19 Filed 06/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

18cv1481-LAB (MDD)

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

 Rew’s objections do not trigger a de novo review of the R&R. The Court has 

reviewed the R&R, finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. The petition is DENIED. 

A certificate of appealability is also DENIED. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 327 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 10, 2019 

 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01481-LAB-MDD Document 19 Filed 06/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4