UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 17, 2008
RONALD EDWARD MONTIJO, SR., PETITIONER,
THOMAS HOFFMAN, DIRECTOR, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge
The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 8) filed on July 22, 2008 by United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes.
On December 27, 2007, Petitioner Ronald Edward Montijo, Sr. filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Central District of California. (Doc. #1). On January 15, 2008 the case was transferred from the Central District of California to the Southern District of California. (Id.). On March 17, 2008, Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. #7). On July 22, 2008 United States Magistrate Judge Stormes issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court deny the Petition. (Doc. #8). The parties were ordered to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation on or before August 22, 2008. Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Standard of Review
The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, "[a] judge of the [district] 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); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the Report and Recommendation de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Ruling of the Court
Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has reviewed all aspects of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on July 22, 2008, and adopts all portions of the Report and Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation correctly concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support Petitioner's conviction, and that section 134 of the California Penal Code is not unconstitutionally vague.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all portions of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 8) are ADOPTED. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.