Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00947/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00947-1/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

BOBBY BEJARANO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 14cv947-LAB (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; AND

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

vs.

KIM HOLLAND, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner Bobby Bejarano filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jan Adler for report and

recommendation, as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. On July 16, Judge

Adler issued his report and recommendation (the "R&R"), recommending that the petition be

denied. Objections to the R&R were due July 31, 2015 but none have been received or filed.

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." Rule 72(b)(3). "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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). The statute makes it

- 1 - 14cv947

Case 3:14-cv-00947-LAB-JMA Document 22 Filed 08/12/15 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

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).

Although de novo review is not required, the Court has reviewed the R&R and finds

it both reasonable and correct. The Court ADOPTS the R&R, and the petition is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 11, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 14cv947

Case 3:14-cv-00947-LAB-JMA Document 22 Filed 08/12/15 Page 2 of 2