Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00704/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00704-2/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

15CV704 BEN (WVG)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EBRAHIM MUSSA MOHAMED,

Plaintiff,

v.

CYNTHIA TAMPKINS,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15CV704 BEN (WVG)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION DENYING 

MOTION TO STAY

[Docket Nos. 9, 21]

Petitioner Ebrahim Mussa Mohamed filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on March 30, 2015. (Docket No. 1.) On June 3, 2015, 

Petitioner filed the Motion to Stay presently before the Court. (Docket No. 9.) A

briefing schedule was issued and an Opposition to the Motion to Stay was filed. (Docket 

Nos. 6-7.) 

On February 3, 2016, Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo issued a thoughtful and 

thorough Report and Recommendation recommending this Court deny Petitioner’s 

Motion to Stay. (Docket No. 21.) Any objections to the Report and Recommendation 

were due February 23, 2016. (Id.) Petitioner has not filed any objections. For the 

reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

///

Case 3:15-cv-00704-WQH-WVG Document 22 Filed 03/07/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

15CV704 BEN (WVG)

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

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

However, “[t]he 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); see also 

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 

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

that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The 

Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner’s Motion to Stay is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-00704-WQH-WVG Document 22 Filed 03/07/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2