Jaquan Donte Ramsey v. Jeff Macomber, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 1
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation to deny a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, noting that no party filed objections. The district judge adopted the R&R, denied the petition, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), when no objections are filed, the district judge must review the R&R for clear error. The court explicitly stated it reviewed the R&R and found it 'thorough, well-reasoned, and lacks any clear error,' which is the correct procedural posture for adopting an unobjected-to R&R. |
Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“DENIES Ramsey’s Petition” | de novo | agree with court The denial of the habeas petition follows directly from the adoption of the R&R. Since the R&R recommended denial and the district judge found no clear error in that recommendation after a de novo review, the denial is procedurally sound. The order does not recite the specific factual or legal grounds for the denial (e.g., procedural default, lack of exhaustion, or failure to state a claim), but the procedural mechanism for the denial is correct. |
Case Closure“DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close this case” | de novo | agree with court Closing the case after the final disposition of the petition is standard administrative procedure. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R in the absence of objections (clear error review). It cites the correct statutory and case law authorities (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Remsing, and Reyna-Tapia) to support this standard. The court explicitly states it performed the required review and found no clear error, which is the necessary predicate for adopting the R&R. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for this procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAQUAN DONTE RAMSEY, Case No.: 21-cv-00365-AJB-VET 12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 33) AND (2) DENYING 14 JEFF MACOMBER, Secretary of the PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS California Department of Corrections and 15 CORPUS Rehabilitation, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Jaquan Donte Ramsey’s (“Ramsey”) Petition for Writ 19 of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72.1.d, the 20 assigned magistrate judge for a prisoner case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 not involving the 21 death penalty must submit “a report containing proposed findings of fact and 22 recommendations for disposition of the petition by the district judge.” See also CivLR 23 72.3.e. Thus, also before the Court is Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres’ Report and 24 Recommendation Regarding Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “R&R”). (Doc. No. 25 33.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that Ramsey’s Petition be denied. (Id. at 1–2.) The 26 R&R instructed the parties to file written objections on or before March 31, 2026; and that 27 any reply to the objections must be filed within seven days of the written objections. (Id. 28 at 23.) No party has filed an objection or reply. 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 2 ||judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 3 || district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to 4 || which objection is made[,|” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 5 || findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see 6 United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). In the absence of any 7 || objections, a district court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of 8 ||the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory 9 || committee’s note to the 1983 amendment; see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 10 |} 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 11 Again, no party has filed an objection or reply to the R&R. Upon review, the Court 12 || finds the R&R is thorough, well-reasoned, and lacks any clear error. Accordingly, the 13 || Court: 14 (1) ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety; 15 (2) DENIES Ramsey’s Petition; and 16 (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close this case. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: May 14, 2026 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28