UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 7, 2013
COREY ANTHONY COLLINS,
DOMINGO URIBE, JR., WARDEN; KAMALA D. HARRIS,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez United States District Judge
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING IN FULL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 10] AND (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE [Doc. No. 2]
Presently before the Court is Petitioner Corey Anthony Collins's ("Petitioner") motion for stay and abeyance. [Doc. No. 2.] Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("the Petition") on May 29, 2012. [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner in his motion for stay and abeyance requests the Court to stay further proceedings on his Petition in order to exhaust his sufficiency of the evidence claim, which is listed as ground three in the Petition. [Doc. No. 2, Pet.'s Mot. at 5-6.]
The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr., who issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") recommending that Petitioner's motion for stay and abeyance be granted. [Doc. No. 10.] The R & R concludes that Petitioner has shown good cause to grant a stay of the action. [Id. at 6.] The time for filing objections to the R & R expired on October 31, 2012. Respondents have not filed any objections.
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R & R to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. However, "[t]he 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 original). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Id.
In this case, the time for filing objections to the R & R passed over two months ago and Respondents have not filed any objections. Accordingly, the Court may adopt the R & R on that basis alone. See id. Having reviewed Petitioner's motion, Defendant Domingo Uribe's response to the Court's order to show [Doc. No. 9], and the R & R, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN FULL the R & R. See28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Having reviewed the R & R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL the R & R and GRANTS Petitioner's motion for stay and abeyance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.