Harris v. Felker et al

Filing 20

ORDER Overruling Petitioner's Objection; Adopting the Magistrate Judge's 18 Report and Recommendation; and Denying With Prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 9/28/09. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(pdc) (av1).

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 On November 19, 2007, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Respondent filed an answer to the petition on May 23, 2008 and petitioner filed a traverse on August 18, 2008. The Honorable Barbara Major, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation ("report") denying the petition on August 21, 2008. Petitioner filed a general objection to the report on September 11, 2008. Defendant did not file a reply. For the reasons set forth below, this Court OVERRULES petitioner's objection, ADOPTS the magistrate judge's report, and DENIES the petition in its entirety. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . .to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge]." It is well-settled, under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that MARK A. HARRIS, v. Petitioner, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 07CV2216 JAH (BLM) ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTION; ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT; AND DENYING THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS

TOMMY FELKER, Warden, et al., Respondents.

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

a district court may adopt those parts of a magistrate judge's report to which no specific objection is made, provided they are not clearly erroneous. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153 (1985). After analyzing each ground for relief, the magistrate judge issued a lengthy and well reasoned report recommending denial of the entire petition. Petitioner subsequently filed one general objection to the magistrate judge's decision; however, petitioner did not specifically object to any of the magistrate's factual findings or legal analysis. Although no specific objections were made, in an abundance of caution this court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report. Upon review, this Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's report in its entirety and DENIES the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 28, 2009

JOHN A. HOUSTON United States District Judge

2