Guillory v. Santoro

Filing 22

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation and Denying Petition. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 2/11/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JEMERE GUILLORY,

Case No.: 17cv2084-CAB-BGS
Petitioner,

11
12

v.

13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
DENYING PETITION

KELLY SANTORO, Warden,

14

Respondent.

15
16

On October 5, 2017, Petitioner Jemere Guillory (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner

17

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

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, [Doc. No. 1.] On February 12, 2018, Respondent filed an

19

answer to the petition and lodged the state court record. [Doc. Nos. 13, 14.] On March

20

22, 2018, Petitioner filed a traverse. [Doc. No. 17.]

21

On December 5, 2018, Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued a Report and

22

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

23

19.] The Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed by December 28, 2018.

24

[Report at 19.] On December 24, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion for a thirty-day

25

extension of time to file objections to the Report. [Doc. No. 20.] On December 27,

26

2018, this Court granted Petitioner’s motion and granted him until January 28, 2019, to

27

file any objections to the report. [Doc. No. 21.] To date, no objection has been filed, nor

28

has there been any other request for additional time in which to file an objection.
1
17cv2084-CAB-BGS

1

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and

2

recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

parties themselves accept as correct.” Id.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

Recommendation [Doc. No. 19] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report,

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 11, 2019

24
25
26
27
28
2
17cv2084-CAB-BGS