Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00283/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00283-2/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

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

- 1 - 07cv283

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS GOMEZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07cv0283-BEN (CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

vs. AND RECOMMENDATION 

L. .E. SCRIBNER, Warden,

Respondent.

This is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondent has moved to dismiss the

Petition as untimely. On December 14, 2007, Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo issued a

Report and Recommendation recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted. No objections

have been filed. For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the well-reasoned Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and grants Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.

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

Judge on a dispositive matter. F.R.C.P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Moreover, “the

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to

which objection is made.” Id. “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 

. . . . Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings

and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), cert denied, 157 L.Ed.2d 182 (2003) (emphasis in

Case 3:07-cv-00283-BEN-CAB Document 17 Filed 01/29/08 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 - 07cv283

original).

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge correctly considered the

Petitioner’s arguments and determined that Petitioner’s Petition is barred by the applicable statute

of limitations. This Court adopts in full the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly,

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Petitioner’s Petition is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE as untimely.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 29, 2008

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00283-BEN-CAB Document 17 Filed 01/29/08 Page 2 of 2