Woodall v. Gore et al

Filing 29

ORDER Dismissing Petition. (Re: Doc. 27 ) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner is no longer in custody as a result of the April 17, 2012 probation revocation he is challenging, and is not suffering from any collateral consequen ces of that decision. The petition is dismissed for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. For the same reasons, certificate of appealability is also denied. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 4/10/2014.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(aef)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHAWN JAMES ALLEN WOODALL,

Case No. 13cv2397 DMS (BGS)

12

Petitioner,
vs.
WILLIAM GORE, Sheriff of San Diego
County, et al.,

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

13
14

Respondents.

15
16

Petitioner Shawn James Allen Woodall, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

17

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. He challenges on due process

18

grounds an April 17, 2012 probation revocation. The petition was referred to United States Magistrate

19

Judge Bernard G. Skomal for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section

20

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

21

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, among

22

other grounds. Petitioner did not oppose the motion. On January 6, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued

23

a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Petitioner has not

24

filed objections.

25

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a dispositive

26

matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes.

27

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The court shall make a de novo determination of

28

those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. §
-1-

1

636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not

2

require review by the district court under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50

3

(1985). The "statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings

4

and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

5

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263

6

F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003) (applying Reyna-Tapia to habeas review).

7

In the absence of objections, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner is

8

no longer in custody as a result of the April 17, 2012 probation revocation he is challenging, and is

9

not suffering from any collateral consequences of that decision. The petition is dismissed for the

10

reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. For the same reasons, certificate of appealability

11

is also denied.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

DATED: April 10, 2014

15
16

HON. DANA M. SABRAW
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-