Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01129/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01129-5/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

07CV1129

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOMCHIT JOY NASIRICHAMPANG, Civil No. 07cv1129-L(AJB)

 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

v.

VICTOR M. ALMAGER, Warden,

 

 Respondent.

Petitioner Somchit Joy Nasirichampang, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was referred to United

States Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d). On January 25, 2008, the Magistrate Judge

issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending to grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss

the petition as untimely. 

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” 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). Section 636(b)(1) does not require some lesser review by the

district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The

Case 3:07-cv-01129-L-AJB Document 16 Filed 03/03/08 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

2 07CV1129

“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." United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in the original); see

Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003) (applying

Reyna-Tapia to habeas review). 

In the absence of any objections, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED as untimely.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 3, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-01129-L-AJB Document 16 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 2