Spells v. Beard et al

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Court approves and adopts in its entirety 10 Report and Recommendation. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 10/11/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRIS LEON SPELLS,
Petitioner,

12
13

Case No. 16-cv-102-BAS (WVG)
ORDER:

v.

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION IN ITS
ENTIRETY;

14
15

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

(2) DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Respondents.

16
17
18

INTRODUCTION

19
20

On January 14, 2016, Petitioner Chris Leon Spells brought a Petition for Writ

21

of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the denial of his

22

petition for resentencing under the California Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012.

23

(ECF No. 1.) Respondents answered on April 5, 2016, and Petitioner filed his traverse

24

on May 3, 2016.

25

On August 5, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo issued a

26

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court deny the

27

Petition. (ECF No. 10.) Magistrate Judge Gallo also ordered that any objections be

28

filed no later than September 9, 2016, and any replies no later than September 30,
–1–

16cv102

1

2016. To date, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested

2

additional time to do so.

3

DISCUSSION

4

The Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which objections are

5

made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole

6

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. “The

7

statute makes it clear,” however, “that the district judge must review the magistrate

8

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

9

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

10

banc) (emphasis in original); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

11

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the district

12

court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the

13

Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and

14

recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328

15

F.3d at 1121. This legal rule is well-established in the Ninth Circuit and this district.

16

See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo

17

review of a[n] R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”);

18

Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting

19

report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the

20

report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d

21

1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

22

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was September 9, 2016.

23

However, no objections have been filed, and neither party has requested additional

24

time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See

25

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of

26

the Petition (ECF No. 1), Respondents’ Answer (ECF No. 7), Petitioner’s Traverse

27

(ECF No. 9), the lodgments (ECF No. 8), and Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R, the

28

Court concludes that Judge Gallo’s reasoning is sound. Accordingly, the Court
–2–

16cv102

1

approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

DATED: October 11, 2016

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–3–

16cv102