Martinez v. Jacquez et al

Filing 20

ORDER Adopting 19 Report and Recommendation, and Denying With Prejudice First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Accordingly, in the absence of objections and after conducting a de novo review, the Court Adopts the Report and Recommendatio n in its entirety and Denies With Prejudice Petitioner's First Amended Petition. Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, therefore a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 5/17/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JUAN VILLASENOR MARTINEZ also
known as LARRY BELTRAN,

CASE NO. 09cv416-MMA (JMA)

Petitioner,

13
vs.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

14
15

[Doc. No. 19]
16
17

DENYING WITH PREJUDICE
FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

F. JACQUEZ, Warden,
Respondent.

18

[Doc. No. 7]
19
20

Petitioner Juan Villasenor Martinez, also known as Larry Beltran, a state prisoner proceeding

21

pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, superseded by a first

22

amended petition [Doc. No. 7], challenging his state court sentence and judgment subsequent to

23

pleading guilty on several drug related counts. Respondent filed an answer to the first amended

24

petition [Doc. No. 14]. After requesting and receiving an extension of time in which to do so,

25

Petitioner did not file a traverse [Doc. Nos. 16 & 17]. The matter was referred to United States

26

Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for preparation of a Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. §

27

636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d)(4).

28

///
-1-

09cv416

1

Judge Adler issued a well reasoned and thorough Report recommending the first amended

2

petition be denied in its entirety. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due no later

3

than February 18, 2011. To date, Petitioner has not filed any objections.

4

Where, as here, the case has been referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

5

636, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

6

72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions

7

of the [Report and Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also

8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate

9

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United

10

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). “Neither the Constitution nor

11

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

12

themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Accordingly, a district court is

13

entitled to adopt a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation based on the lack of objections.

14

Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review and agrees that the first amended petition

15

should be denied with prejudice.

16

Accordingly, in the absence of objections and after conducting a de novo review, the Court

17

ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and DENIES WITH PREJUDICE

18

Petitioner’s first amended petition.

19

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final

20
21

order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11 foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A petitioner may not seek an appeal

22

of a claim arising out of state court detention unless the petitioner first obtains a certificate of

23

appealability from a district judge or a circuit judge under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

24

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), a certificate of appealability will issue only if the petitioner makes a

25

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

26

///

27

///

28

///
-2-

09cv416

1

For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner has not made a

2

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability

3

should not issue in this action.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: May 17, 2011

6
7

Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

09cv416