Nguyen v. Paramo
ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Dkt # 8 ) is adopted in its entirety. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is granted. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner pursing his claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 9/26/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TAM STEVE NGUYEN,
CASE NO. 17-cv-0521-WQH-NLS
DANIEL PARAMO, WARDEN,
The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation
issued by United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes (ECF No. 8).
On March 15, 2017, Petitioner Tam Steve Nguyen, proceeding pro se, filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 1). Nguyen “is challenging a prison
disciplinary finding that took place at Richard J. Donovan Correctional facility.” Id.
On May 22, 2017, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition. (ECF No.
6). On June 5, 2017, Petitioner filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss. (ECF No. 7). On August 3, 2017, United State Magistrate Judge Nita L.
Stormes issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Motion to
Dismiss be granted. (ECF No. 8). The docket reflects that no objections have been
filed to the Report and Recommendation.
1 II. Discussion
The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation
3 of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28
4 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those
5 portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or
6 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.”
7 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a
8 Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416
9 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
10 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act]
11 requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the
12 parties themselves accept as correct.”).
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the
14 submissions of the parties. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly
15 recommended that the Motion to Dismiss be granted. The Report and Recommendation
16 is adopted in its entirety.
17 III. Conclusion
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8)
19 is adopted in its entirety. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of
20 Habeas Corpus is granted. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed without
21 prejudice to Petitioner pursing his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
22 DATED: September 26, 2017
WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?