Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Randle v. Tilton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 5, 2008

MICHAEL R. RANDLE, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES TILTON, SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Michael R. Randle, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent moved to dismiss the Petition as untimely. On December 31, 2007, Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo issued a Report and Recommendation that the motion to dismiss be granted and the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. Any party that wished to file objections had until February 4, 2008, to do so. As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed. For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the well-reasoned and thorough Report and Recommendation; grants Respondent's Motion to Dismiss; and dismisses the Petition with prejudice.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision" on a dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made."

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Section 636(b)(1) does not require some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The "statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in the original); see Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1225-26 & n. 5 (D. Ariz. 2003).

In the absence of any objections, this Court adopts in full the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080205

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.