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.

Culbertson v. Paramo

United States District Court, S.D. California

November 19, 2014

LAYTON CULBERTSON, Petitioner,
v.
D. PARAMO, Respondent.

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (2) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.

Petitioner Layton Culbertson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No. 1). Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition on June 4, 2014. (Docket Nos. 10-11). On September 16, 2014, Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation recommending that the Petition be denied. (Docket No. 12). Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due October 17, 2014. ( Id. ) No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly objected to." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). 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); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

After a de novo review, and in the absence of any objections, the Court fully ADOPTS Judge Major's Report and Recommendation. The habeas petition is DENIED.

The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability because the issues are not debatable among jurists of reason and there are no questions adequate to deserve encouragement. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment denying the Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.