Steven D Young v. William Muniz

Filing 21

ORDER Adopting Report & Recommendation 19 ; Lifting the Kelly Stay of Proceedings by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: (see document image for further details). The Report and Recommendation [Doc #19] is ADOPTED without objection. The previously granted Kelly stay of these habeas proceedings is LIFTED. (ad)

1
2

JS-5

3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

WESTERN DIVISION

10
11

______________________________________

12

STEVEN D. YOUNG,

13
14
15
16
17

)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
WARDEN WILLIAM MUNIZ,
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
_______________________________________

Case No. LA CV 15-09840-VBF-KK
ORDER
Adopting Report & Recommendation;
Lifting the Kelly Stay of Proceedings

18

Proceeding pro se, California state prisoner Steven D. Young (“petitioner”) initiated
19

this an action for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28
20

U.S.C. section 2254 by filing the original petition on December 22, 2015. See Case
21

Management / Electronic Case Filing System Document (“Doc”) Doc 1. The operative
22

pleading is the Second Amended Petition (“SAP”) filed March 28, 2016 (Doc 14). Pursuant
23

to his authority under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1), title 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B), and C.D.
24

Cal. Local Civil Rule 72-3.3, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
25

Recommendation (“R&R”) on January 6, 2017 (Doc 19).
26

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the SAP (Doc 14), the
27
28

-1-

1

April 14, 2016 Order granting a Kelly stay (Doc 15), the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc 19),

2

and the applicable law.

3

Petitioner has not filed written objections to the R&R within the time allotted by

4

our Local Civil Rule 72-3.4.1 See Sudduth v. Soto, No. LA CV 15-09038-VBF-RAO, 2016

5

WL 2016 WL 4035337, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2016) (Valerie Baker Fairbank, J.) (“This

6

Court never rules on an R&R without waiting for the objection deadline to pass, and it will

7

not rule on the R&R here until at least one week after . . . [petitioner]’s objection deadline

8

elapses . . . .”).

9

Accordingly, the Court proceeds to the issues without waiting further.

Nor has petitioner sought an extension of the objection deadline.

10
11

By its terms, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) requires a District Judge

12

to conduct de novo review only of those portions of an R&R to which a party has filed

13

timely specific objection. See, e.g., Jette v. Colvin, No. 3:13-cv-00719-AC, 2016 WL

14

4717735, *1 (D. Or. Sept. 7, 2016) (“Because no objections . . . were timely filed, this Court

15

is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo.”) (citing Dawson v. Marshall, 561

16

F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)( C) and United States v.

17

Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 622 (9th Cir. 2000)) and United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

18

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)); Rael v. Foulk, No. LA CV 14-02987 Doc. 47, 2015 WL

19
20
21
22
23

1

Both Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1) provide that a party may file
written objections to an R&R within fourteen days after being served with the R&R. Our Local Civil
Rule 72-3.3, however, provides that “[i]f a party is in custody at the time of the filing of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, the time for filing objections under F.R. Civ. P. 72(b) shall be shall be
twenty (20) days or such further time as the Magistrate Judge may order.”

24

27

“Consistent with the Federal Rule governing Magistrate Judges and the Federal Magistrates
Act, the Court construes that to mean twenty calendar days after the incarcerated party is served with
the R&R, not merely twenty days after the R&R is filed on the docket.” Crump v. CSP-Los Angeles
County’s Maintenance-Plant Operations Dep’t, No. LA CV 15-07845, 2016 WL 1610593, *1 n.1
(C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2016) (Fairbank, J.), appeal dismissed, No. 16-55883 (9th Cir. Dec. 9, 2016).

28

-2-

25
26

1

4111295, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015) (Fairbank, J.) (“As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3),

2

the Court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which petitioner has

3

specifically objected . . . .”), COA denied, Doc. 53, No. 15-56205 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2016).

4

Conversely, the Ninth Circuit has held that absent a timely objection purporting

5

to identify specific defects in the R&R, the District Judge has no obligation to review

6

the R&R at all. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

7

banc) (district judge must review a magistrate’s findings and recommendations de novo if

8

objections are made, “but not otherwise”)), cited by Beard v. Nooth, 2013 WL 3934188, *1

9

(D. Or. July 30, 2013) (“For those portions of a magistrate’s findings and recommendations

10

to which neither party has objected, the [Federal Magistrates] Act does not prescribe any

11

standard of review.”) (also citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152, 106 S. Ct. 466, 473

12

(1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Federal Magistrates Act],

13

intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report.[.]”)); see, e.g., Herring

14

v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 2016 WL 2754851, *1 (D. Ariz. May 12, 2016)

15

(Campbell, J.) (“No objection has been filed, which relieves the Court of its obligation to

16

review the R&R.”) (citing, inter alia, Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121, and Thomas, 474 U.S.

17

at 149); Hussak v. Ryan, 2016 WL 2606993, *1 (D. Ariz. May 6, 2016) (Rayes, J.) (same).

18

Accord Kinetic Fuel Technology, Inc. v. Total Fuel Solutions, LLC, 2016 WL 1389616, *1

19

(W.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2016) (“The Court is not required to review de novo those portions of a

20

report and recommendation to which objections were not filed.”) (citing Mario v. P&C Food

21

Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002)).

22

“Nonetheless, the Magistrates Act does not preclude a district judge from

23

reviewing an R&R to make sure that it recommends a legally permissible and

24

appropriate outcome (based on sound reasoning and valid precedent) if she chooses to

25

do so.” Juarez v. Katavich, 2016 WL 2908238, *2 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2016) (Fairbank, J.)

26

(citing Beard, 2013 WL 3934188 at *1 (although in the absence of objections no review is

27
28

-3-

1

required, the Magistrates Act “‘does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua

2

sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard”) (quoting Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154)).

3

“‘Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that [w]hen no

4

timely objection is filed, the Court review the magistrate’s recommendations for clear error

5

on the face of the record.’” Juarez, 2016 WL 2908238 at *2 (quoting Beard, 2013 WL

6

3934188 at *1 (internal quotation marks omitted)).

7

Out of an abundance of caution, then, the Court has reviewed the R&R. On

8

either clear-error or de novo review, the Court finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in

9

the R&R. Therefore the Court will adopt the R&R and implement its recommendations.

10

Cf. Hawkins v. Boyd, 2017 WL 27949, *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2017) (“This Court, however,

11

will conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain

12

error. No such error appears here. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R . . . .”) (internally

13

citing Spence v. Sup’t of Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000)).

14
15

ORDER

16

The Report and Recommendation [Doc #19] is ADOPTED without objection.

17

The previously granted Kelly stay of these habeas proceedings is LIFTED.

18
19
20

Dated: Thursday, February 23, 2017

_________________________________

21

Hon. Valerie Baker Fairbank

22

Senior United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-