United States District Court, Southern District of California
April 10, 2001
SAMUEL M. JOHNSON, PETITIONER,
CRAIG NELSON, RESPONDENT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas J. Whelan, United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On September 28, 2000 Petitioner Samuel M. Johnson ("Petitioner"),
proceeding pro se, submitted this petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his civil
commitment to the California Department of Mental Health under the Sexually
Violent Predator Act ("SVP Act"), California Welfare and Institutions Code
§ 6600 et seq.
On February 22, 2001 United States Magistrate Judge Anthony J.
Battaglia issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") describing the
reasons why Petitioner's habeas petition should be denied with
prejudice. The parties were permitted to file objections to the Report, if
any, no later than April 4, 2001. To date, no party has submitted
objections to the Report, nor requested additional time in which to do
I. LEGAL STANDARD
The duties of the district court in connection with a Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
district court "must make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report . . . to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C); see also United States v.
Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Raddatz,
447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980).
When no objections are filed, the district court may assume the
correctness of the magistrate judge's findings of fact and decide the
motion on the applicable law. See Campbell v. United States Dist. Court,
501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974). Under such circumstances, the Ninth
Circuit has held that "a failure to file objections only relieves the
trial court of its burden to give de novo review to factual findings;
conclusions of law must still be reviewed de novo." Barilla v. Ervin,
886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified
Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)).
Having read and considered the papers submitted, including Petitioner's
motion, the Court concludes that the Report presents a well reasoned
analysis of the issues raised by the parties. The Magistrate Judge
correctly determined that: (1) Petitioner presented a cognizable federal
claim; (2) there was sufficient evidence of substantial sexual conduct;
and (3) the trial court properly had jurisdiction over the SVP petition.
In light of the foregoing, the reasoning and findings contained in the
Report are hereby ADOPTED in their entirety. For the reasons stated in the
Report, which' are incorporated herein by reference, the Court DISMISSES
with prejudice Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus. The Clerk
of Court shall close the district court case file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.