Guzman v. Madden et al

Filing 13

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 12 and Denying Petition. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 4/6/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jjg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SERGIO RAMIREZ GUZMAN,

Case No.: 17cv982-CAB-WVG

Petitioner,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 12]
AND DENYING PETITION

RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden, et al.,

15

Respondent.

16
17

On May 11, 2017, Petitioner Sergio Ramirez Guzman (“Petitioner”), a state

18

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

19

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, [Doc. No. 1.] On September 27, 2018, Respondent

20

filed an answer to the petition and lodged the state court record. [Doc. Nos. 7, 8.] On

21

November 2, 2017, Petitioner filed a traverse. [Doc. No. 10.]

22

On February 21, 2018, Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo issued a Report and

23

Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Court deny the Petition. [Doc. No.

24

12.] The Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed by March 30, 2918.

25

[Report at 20.] To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for

26

additional time in which to file an objection.

27
28

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the
1
17cv982-CAB-WVG

1

Federal rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are

2

filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and

3

recommendation. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report and

4

Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may

5

“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by

6

the magistrate judge.” Id. However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge

7

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

8

made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

9

Cir.2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute

10

requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the

11

parties themselves accept as correct.” Id.

12

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to the Report. Having reviewed it,

13

the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error.

14

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Gallo’s Report and

15

Recommendation [Doc. No. 12] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report,

16

which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court DENIES the Petition. [Doc. No. 1.]

17

Moreover, because the Court does not believe that reasonable jurists would find the

18

Court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong it DECLINES to

19

issue a Certificate of Appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 6, 2018

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17cv982-CAB-WVG