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.

Woodfork v. Tilton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 23, 2008

JEFFREY ANTHONY WOODFORK, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES TILTON, SECRETARY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; and DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Petitioner, Jeffrey Anthony Woodfork, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on April 12, 2007. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter, for a Report and Recommendation ("Report") under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3. The magistrate judge issued a Report recommending the petition be denied and requiring objections, if any, to the Report to be filed no later than March 14, 2008. [doc. #17].

The Report and an Order on petitioner's Motion for Miscellaneous Relief were returned as undeliverable. [doc. #18, 19]. On March 14, 2008, petitioner filed a notice of change of address. As a result of petitioner's change of address, the Report and the Order on petitioner's motion were resent to petitioner at his new address. The Court, sua sponte, extended the time in which petitioner was required to file objections to the Report. See Order filed March 28, 2008 [doc. #22]. On April 24, 2008, petitioner attempted to file an "order extending time for filing objections to the report and recommendation." The document was stricken by way of a discrepancy order because it was not filed as a motion and there was no proof of service. See Order filed April 25, 2008 [doc. #24]. Since that time, petitioner has not sought a further extension of time in which to file objections to the Report. The Report therefore is unopposed.

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 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- , 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) (applying Reyna-Tapia to habeas review).

Because the parties have not filed objections to the Report, and the magistrate judge has carefully and fully considered the arguments of the parties, the Court will adopt the Report.

Based on the foregoing, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety; and the petition is DENIED with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080523

© 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.