Wimberly v. Neotti

Filing 9

ORDER adopting re 8 Report and Recommendation; Denying With Prejudice 1 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 Recommendation in its en tirety and denies with prejudice Petitioner's petition.For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 9/14/2011. (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

KENT WIMBERLY,

CASE NO. 10 CV 2106 MMA (JMA)
Petitioner,

12
13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE;

vs.

14
[Doc. No. 8]
15
16

DENYING WITH PREJUDICE
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS

GEORGE NEOTTI, Warden,
Respondent.

17

[Doc. No. 1]
18
Petitioner Kent Wimberly, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, filed a petition for writ

19
20

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the Board of Parole’s decision on

21

September 22, 2009 finding him unsuitable for parole. [Doc. No. 1] Respondent George Neotti

22

filed a response to the petition [Doc. No. 6], and Petitioner filed a traverse [Doc. No. 7]. The

23

matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for preparation of a Report

24

and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d)(4).
Judge Adler issued a well-reasoned and thorough Report recommending the petition be

25
26

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

27

August 16, 2011. To date, Petitioner has not filed any objections.

28

///
-1-

10cv2106

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

portions of the [Report and Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §

5

636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must

6

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not

7

otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

8

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

9

recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

10

Accordingly, a district court is entitled to adopt a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

11

based on the lack of objections. Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review and

12

agrees that the petition should be denied with prejudice.

13

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

14

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

15

Petitioner’s petition.

16

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

of appealability from a district judge or a circuit judge under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Fed. R. App. P.

21

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

22

makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

23
24
25
26
27

///

28

///
-2-

10cv2106

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

3

appealability should not issue in this action.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 14, 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-

10cv2106