Culbertson v. Paramo

Filing 13

ORDER: (1) Adopting Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and (3) Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 11/19/2014.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

LAYTON CULBERTSON,

11
12
13

CASE NO. 14CV972 BEN (BLM)
Petitioner,

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

vs.

(2) DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

14
15
16

ORDER:

D. PARAMO,
Respondent.

(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

17
18

Petitioner Layton Culbertson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant

19 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No. 1).
20 Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition on June 4, 2014. (Docket Nos. 10-11). On
21 September 16, 2014, Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major issued a thoughtful and
22 thorough Report and Recommendation recommending that the Petition be denied.
23 (Docket No. 12). Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due October
24 17, 2014. (Id.) No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report
25 and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
26

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of

27 a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C.
28 § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and
-1-

14cv972

1 recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
2 However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate
3 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not
4 otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en
5 banc); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither
6 the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings
7 and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328
8 F.3d at 1121.
9

After a de novo review, and in the absence of any objections, the Court fully

10 ADOPTS Judge Major’s Report and Recommendation. The habeas petition is
11 DENIED.
12

The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability because the issues are not

13 debatable among jurists of reason and there are no questions adequate to deserve
14 encouragement. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). The Clerk of
15 Court shall enter judgment denying the Petition.
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19 DATED: November 19, 2014
20
21

Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

14cv972