United States District Court, S.D. California
November 16, 2005.
WILLIAM K. LLORENS, Petitioner,
T.E. VAUGHN, Warden, et al., Respondents.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: ROGER BENITEZ, District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Docket No. 10)
Petitioner WILLIAM K. LLORENS ("Petitioner") has filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
("Petition"). In September 2005, Honorable Magistrate Judge James
issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report),
finding the Petition was time barred under the one year
limitations period prescribed by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). Judge Stiven also found that
Petitioner was not entitled to statutory or equitable tolling.
To date, Petitioner has filed no objections to the Report.
Nevertheless the Court has made a de novo review of the Report.
See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (The Court "shall 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 [judge]."); see also, Wang v. Masaitis,
416 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2005). Having done so, the Court ADOPTS the Report in full. Accordingly, for the reasons
set forth in the Report, the Petition is DENIED as untimely and
Petitioner is neither entitled to statutory, nor equitable,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.