Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01275/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01275-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ANDREW REDD,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11cv1275-LAB (WMc)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

vs.

TRIMBLE, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner David Redd is a prisoner in state custody. The petition was referred to

Magistrate Judge William McCurine for report and recommendation. After receiving briefing,

Judge McCurine on November 8, 2011 issued his report and recommendation (the “R&R”),

which recommended denying the petition. The R&R required that objections be filed no later

than November 29, 2011, but no objections have been filed nor has Redd filed anything else

nor sought additional time in which to do so.

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "The district judge must

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

objected to." Id. "A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This

section does not require some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed. 

- 1 - 11cv1275

Case 3:11-cv-01275-LAB-WMC Document 14 Filed 05/14/12 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

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). 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." U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

banc); see Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225–26 & n.5 (D.Ariz. 2003)

(applying Reyna-Tapia to habeas review).

The Court has reviewed the R&R, finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. The Petition

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 10, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 11cv1275

Case 3:11-cv-01275-LAB-WMC Document 14 Filed 05/14/12 Page 2 of 2