Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01559/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01559-1/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 – 15cv1559 

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 

FRANK JOHNSON, 

 Petitioner, 

Case No. 15-cv-1559-BAS(PCL) 

ORDER: 

(1)APPROVING AND 

ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS 

ENTIRETY; AND 

(2)DIRECTING JUDGMENT BE 

ENTERED DENYING 

PETITIONER’S HABEAS 

PETITION 

[ECF No. 11] 

 v. 

R. MADDEN, Warden, 

 Respondent. 

On July 13, 2015, Petitioner Frank Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding pro 

se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a 

prison disciplinary decision. Thereafter, Respondent R. Madden, in his capacity as 

Warden, responded to the petition. On August 4, 2016, United States Magistrate 

Judge Peter C. Lewis issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending 

that this Court deny Petitioner’s habeas petition and enter judgment accordingly. 

Judge Lewis ordered any objections to be filed no later than August 18, 2016, and 

Case 3:15-cv-01559-BAS-PCL Document 12 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 3
 – 2 – 15cv1559 

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 

any replies no later than September 1, 2016. To date, no objections have been filed, 

and neither party has requested additional time to do so. 

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are 

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or 

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But 

“[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) 

(emphasis in original); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 

(D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the district court had 

no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor 

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

that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. “When no objections are filed, the 

de novo review is waived.” Marshall v. Astrue, No. 08cv1735, 2010 WL 841252, at 

*1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without 

review because neither party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to 

do so). 

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was on August 18, 2016. 

However, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional 

time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Having nonetheless conducted a de novo review of 

the habeas petition, Respondent’s response, the lodgment, and the R&R, the Court 

concludes that Judge Lewis’ reasoning is sound. Accordingly, the Court hereby 

approves and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (ECF No. 11), DENIES Petitioner’s 

writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1), and ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to enter 

judgment accordingly. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Additionally, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant 

makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 3:15-cv-01559-BAS-PCL Document 12 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 3
 – 3 – 15cv1559 

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 

2253(c)(2). Petitioner has made no such showing. Because reasonable jurists would 

not find the Court’s assessment of the claims debatable or wrong, the Court 

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 16, 2016 

Case 3:15-cv-01559-BAS-PCL Document 12 Filed 09/16/16 Page 3 of 3