Storey v. Paramo

Filing 66

ORDER ADOPTING 57 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; and ORDER Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. This amended order replaces the order signed 8/26/2019 (Docket no. 26 ). The Clerk is directed to replace that order with this one. Signed by Chief Judge Larry Alan Burns on 8/27/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DONTAZE A. STOREY,

Case No.: 17cv23-LAB (MSB)
Petitioner,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION; AND

DANIEL PARAMO,

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Respondent.

15
16
17
18

This amended order replaces the order signed August 26, 2019 (Docket no. 26.) The
Clerk is directed to replace that order with this one.

19

Petitioner Dontaze Storey, a prisoner in state custody, filed his petition for writ of

20

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge

21

Michael Berg who, on March 22, 2019, issued his report and recommendation (the

22

“R&R”). Judge Berg’s R&R set forth a thorough account of the procedural history and

23

analysis Storey’s claims, and recommended denying the petition.

24

The Court granted three separate extensions of time for Storey to file his objections

25

to the R&R, most recently extending the deadline to August 12, 2019. Still, he has filed

26

no objections.

27

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and

28

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must
1
17cv23-LAB (MSB)

1

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

2

objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,

3

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4

This section does not require some lesser review by the district court when no objections

5

are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). The “statute makes it clear that the

6

district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if

7

objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

8

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original).

9
10

The Court has reviewed the R&R, finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. The
Petition is DENIED.

11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 27, 2019

~

A· Bums
(k,,,,,,yHon. Larry Alan
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17cv23-LAB (MSB)