Villalobos v. Hernandez

Filing 63

ORDER adopting re 62 Report and Recommendation and Denying Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 8/23/2012. (sjt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13 ANGEL VILLALOBOS,
14
15
16
17
18
19

) Case No. 09-cv-363-L(MDD)
)
Petitioner,
) ORDER:
)
v.
) (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
) RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 62],
ROBERT HERNANDEZ, Warden,
) AND
)
Defendant.
) (2) DENYING PETITIONER’S
) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
) CORPUS [DOC. 1]
)
On February 23, 2009, Petitioner Angel Villalobos, a state prisoner, filed this Petition for

20 Writ of Habeas Corpus under 42 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1) On July 19, 2012, United States
21 Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
22 recommending that the Court deny the Petition. (Doc. 62.) Judge Dembin further ordered that
23 any objections were to be filed by August 10, 2012, and any replies filed by August 24, 2012.
24 (Id.) To date, no objections have been filed, and neither party requested additional time to do so.
25

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and a

26 party’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
27 in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to
28 review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992,
09cv363

1 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[D]e novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is
2 made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding
3 that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) “makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate
4 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise”).
5

In contrast, the duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and

6 recommendation are quite different when an objection has been filed. Specifically, the district
7 court “must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection
8 is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
9 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also United States v.
10 Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989).
11

In light of the fact that no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court approves

12 Judge Dembin’s recommendations, ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 62), and DENIES
13 Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). Furthermore, because reasonable
14 jurists would not find the Court’s assessment of the issues above debatable or wrong, the Court
15 also DENIES a certificate of appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
16
17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 23, 2012
M. James Lorenz
United States District Court Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
09cv363

2